Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Bearmouth Mountainsnail, Byrne Resort Mountainsnail, and Meltwater Lednian Stonefly as Endangered or Threatened, 18684-18701 [2011-7827]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
18684
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Authority: Secs. 4, 303, 307(e), 309, and
332, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47
U.S.C. 154, 303, 307(e), 309, and 332, unless
otherwise noted. Interpret or apply 48 Stat.
1064–1068, 1081–1105, as amended; 47
U.S.C. 151–155, 301–609; 3 UST 3450, 3 UST
4726, 12 UST 2377.
19. Section 80.3 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b) and (e) to read
as follows:
§ 80.3 Other applicable rule parts of this
chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Part 1. This part includes rules of
practice and procedure for license
applications, adjudicatory proceedings,
procedures for reconsideration and
review of the Commission’s actions;
provisions concerning violation notices
and forfeiture proceedings; and the
environmental processing requirements
that, together with the procedures
specified in § 17.4(c) of this chapter, if
applicable, must be complied with prior
to the initiation of construction. Subpart
Q of part 1 contains rules governing
competitive bidding procedures for
resolving mutually exclusive
applications for certain initial licenses.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Part 17. This part contains
requirements for the construction,
marking and lighting of antenna towers,
and the environmental notification
process that must be completed before
filing certain antenna structure
registration applications.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 87—AVIATION SERVICES
20. The authority citation for part 87
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, and 307(e),
unless otherwise noted.
21. Section 87.3 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b) and (e) to read
as follows:
§ 87.3
Other applicable rule parts.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Part 1 contains rules of practice
and procedure for license applications,
adjudicatory proceedings, rule making
proceedings, procedures for
reconsideration and review of the
Commission’s actions; provisions
concerning violation notices and
forfeiture proceedings; and the
environmental processing requirements
that, together with the procedures
specified in § 17.4(c) of this chapter, if
applicable, must be complied with prior
to the initiation of construction.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Part 17 contains requirements for
construction, marking and lighting of
antenna towers, and the environmental
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:08 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
notification process that must be
completed before filing certain antenna
structure registration applications.
*
*
*
*
*
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
PART 90—PRIVATE LAND MOBILE
RADIO SERVICES
[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2011–0016; MO
92210–0–0008–B2]
22. The authority citation for part 90
continues to read as follows:
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a
Petition To List the Bearmouth
Mountainsnail, Byrne Resort
Mountainsnail, and Meltwater Lednian
Stonefly as Endangered or Threatened
Authority: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r),
and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161,
303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7).
23. Section 90.5 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b) and (f) to read as
follows:
§ 90.5
Other applicable rule parts.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Part 1 includes rules of practice
and procedure for the filing of
applications for stations to operate in
the Wireless Telecommunications
Services, adjudicatory proceedings
including hearing proceedings, and rule
making proceedings; procedures for
reconsideration and review of the
Commission’s actions; provisions
concerning violation notices and
forfeiture proceedings; and the
environmental processing requirements
that, together with the procedures
specified in § 17.4(c) of this chapter, if
applicable, must be complied with prior
to initiating construction.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Part 17 contains requirements for
construction, marking and lighting of
antenna towers, and the environmental
notification process that must be
completed before filing certain antenna
structure registration applications.
*
*
*
*
*
24. Section 90.129 is amended by
revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
§ 90.129 Supplemental information to be
routinely submitted with applications.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) The environmental assessment
required by §§ 1.1307 and 1.1311 of this
chapter, if applicable. If an application
filed under this part proposes the use of
one or more new or existing antenna
structures that require registration under
part 17 of this chapter, any required
environmental assessment should be
submitted pursuant to the process set
forth in § 17.4(c) of this chapter rather
than with the application filed under
this part.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2011–7785 Filed 4–4–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition
finding.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list
the Bearmouth mountainsnail
(Oreohelix species 3), Byrne Resort
mountainsnail (Oreohelix species 31),
and meltwater lednian stonefly (Lednia
tumana) as endangered or threatened,
and to designate critical habitat under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). After review of all
available scientific and commercial
information, we find that listing the
Bearmouth mountainsnail and the
Byrne Resort mountainsnail is not
warranted because neither constitutes a
valid taxon; therefore, they are not
considered to be listable entities under
the Act. We find that listing of the
meltwater lednian stonefly is warranted.
However, currently listing of the
meltwater lednian stonefly is precluded
by higher priority actions to amend the
Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication
of this 12-month petition finding, we
will add the meltwater lednian stonefly
to our candidate species list. We will
develop a proposed rule to list the
meltwater lednian stonefly as our
priorities allow. We will make any
determination on critical habitat during
development of the proposed listing
rule. During any interim period, we will
address the status of the candidate taxon
through our annual Candidate Notice of
Review (CNOR).
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on April 5, 2011.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket Number
FWS–R6–ES–2011–0016. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing
this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Montana Field
Office, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, MT
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM
05APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
59601. Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or
questions concerning this finding to the
above street address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Wilson, Field Supervisor,
Montana Field Office (see ADDRESSES);
by telephone at 406–449–5225; or by
facsimile at 406–449–5339. Persons who
use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for
any petition containing substantial
scientific or commercial information
indicating that listing the species may
be warranted, we make a finding within
12 months of the date of receipt of the
petition. In this finding, we determine
that the petitioned action is: (a) Not
warranted, (b) warranted, or (c)
warranted, but immediate proposal of a
regulation implementing the petitioned
action is precluded by other pending
proposals to determine whether species
are endangered or threatened, and
expeditious progress is being made to
add or remove qualified species from
the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section
4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we
treat a petition for which the requested
action is found to be warranted but
precluded as though resubmitted on the
date of such finding, that is, requiring a
subsequent finding to be made within
12 months. We must publish these 12month findings in the Federal Register.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Previous Federal Actions
Federal action for the Bearmouth
mountainsnail, Byrne Resort
mountainsnail, and meltwater lednian
stonefly began on July 30, 2007, after we
received a petition dated July 24, 2007,
from Forest Guardians (now WildEarth
Guardians) requesting that the Service:
(1) Consider all full species in our
mountain-prairie region ranked as G1 or
G1G2 by the organization NatureServe,
except those that are currently listed,
proposed for listing, or candidates for
listing; and (2) list each species as either
endangered or threatened (Forest
Guardians 2007, pp. 1–37). The petition
incorporated all analyses, references,
and documentation provided by
NatureServe in its online database at
https://www.natureserve.org/. We
acknowledged the receipt of the petition
in a letter to the Forest Guardians, dated
August 24, 2007 (Slack 2007, p. 1). In
that letter we stated, based on
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:08 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
preliminary review, we found no
compelling evidence to support an
emergency listing for any of the species
covered by the petition, and that we
planned work on the petition in Fiscal
Year (FY) 2008.
On March 19, 2008, WildEarth
Guardians filed a complaint (1:08–CV–
472–CKK) indicating that the Service
failed to comply with its statutory duty
to make 90-day findings on their two
multiple species petitions in two of the
Service’s administrative regions—one
for the mountain-prairie region, and one
for the Southwest region (WildEarth
Guardians v. Kempthorne 2008, case
1:08–CV–472–CKK). We subsequently
published two initial 90-day findings on
January 6, 2009 (74 FR 419), and
February 5, 2009 (74 FR 6122),
identifying species for which we were
then making negative 90-day findings,
and species for which we were still
working on a determination. The
Bearmouth mountainsnail, Byrne Resort
mountainsnail, and meltwater lednian
stonefly were not addressed in either
90-day finding published in 2009, as we
were still conducting our analyses of
these mountainsnails and the stonefly.
On March 13, 2009, the Service and
WildEarth Guardians filed a stipulated
settlement in the U.S. District Court,
District of Columbia, agreeing that the
Service would submit to the Federal
Register a finding as to whether
WildEarth Guardians’ petition presented
substantial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted
for 38 mountain-prairie region species
by August 9, 2009 (WildEarth Guardians
v. Salazar 2009, case 1:08–CV–472–
CKK).
On August 18, 2009, we published a
90-day finding for 38 mountain-prairie
region species (74 FR 41649). In that
finding, we found that the petition
presented substantial information to
indicate that listing of Bearmouth
mountainsnail and Byrne Resort
mountainsnail may be warranted due to
the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of their
habitat or range resulting from road
construction and associated activities.
We also found that listing of the
meltwater lednian stonefly may be
warranted based on threats from climate
change, and specifically the melting of
glaciers associated with the species’
habitat. The finding also requested
further information pertaining to all
three ‘‘species’’ (74 FR 41649). However,
the 90-day finding did not formally
consider the taxonomic status of the
petitioned entities.
This notice constitutes the 12-month
finding on the July 24, 2007, petition to
list the Bearmouth mountainsnail,
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18685
Byrne Resort mountainsnail, and
meltwater lednian stonefly as
endangered or threatened.
Species Information for Bearmouth
Mountainsnail and Byrne Resort
Mountainsnail
Species Descriptions
Bearmouth mountainsnail and Byrne
Resort mountainsnail are ascribed to the
genus Oreohelix, commonly called the
‘‘mountainsnail.’’ This genus of land
snails is endemic to western North
America and is found in mountainous
environments in the western United
States from the eastern Sierra Nevadas
in the west to the Black Hills in the east,
and from southern Canada down to
northern Mexico (Pilsbry 1916, pp. 341–
342; Pilsbry 1939, pp. 415–416; Weaver
2006, p. 9).
Biology and Life History
Most mountainsnail species are
relatively large land snails (adult body
size greater than 5 centimeters (cm) (2
inches (in.)) that typically prefer
forested environments, calcium-rich
areas, and generally high available water
content during generally dry conditions
in spring and summer months (Weaver
2006, p. 9). They survive colder
conditions at higher elevations by
burrowing underground and aestivating
(Weaver 2006, p. 9). Individuals often
also burrow during hot summer months,
appearing on the surface to feed during
or after rains (Frest and Johannes 1995,
p. 22; Weaver 2006, p. 9). One
adaptation by Oreohelix to arid and
semi-arid environments is the practice
of hatching eggs internally instead of the
typical pattern of laying them in
favorable locations, as desiccation of
eggs and juveniles is a common cause of
land snail death, especially in arid areas
(Frest and Johannes 1995, p. 18).
Hatching the eggs internally can reduce
the probability of desiccation, and
adults seem to be able to delay release
of juveniles if conditions warrant (Frest
and Johannes 1995, p. 18).
Western land snails are typically
herbivores, but some may consume
animal matter (Frest and Johannes 1995,
p. 24). Land snails contribute
substantially to nutrient recycling, often
breaking down plant detritus and
animal waste (Frest and Johannes 1995,
pp. 24–25). They are preyed upon
extensively by small mammals (e.g.,
shrews and voles), reptiles, amphibians,
birds, and insects (Frest and Johannes
1995, p. 25).
The life history of western land snails
is strongly controlled by climate. Some
species of Oreohelix are among the most
long-lived land snails, reaching sexual
E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM
05APP1
18686
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
maturity at about 2 to 3 years and living
as long as 8 to 10 years (Frest and
Johannes 1995, p. 25). Mountainsnails
have low adult vagility (ability to move
or disperse) (Chak 2007, p. 23) and
apparently lack a larval stage with high
dispersal ability (Weaver 2006, pp. 8–9).
Consequently, mountainsnails typically
exist in small, circumscribed colonies
with dozens to a few thousand
individuals (Frest and Johannes 1995,
pp. 22–23). Oreohelix snails are known
to be hermaphroditic (individuals have
both male and female genitalia and can
assume either role in mating) (Pisbry
1939, p. 427; Hendricks 2003, pp.17, 25)
and viviparous (give birth to live young)
(Pilsbry 1916, p. 343; Pilsbry 1939, p.
418).
Oreohelix species and subspecies vary
in size, height of shell spire, degree of
carination (i.e., presence and size of a
keel or ridge around the outside whorl
of the shell), width of umbilicus (i.e.,
the ventral opening formed in the center
of the whorls), and color (Pilsbry 1939,
p. 415). Shell morphology is plastic
(variable in response to environmental
conditions) in Oreohelix, and in snails
in general and can be affected by
elevation, calcium content, humidity,
and population density (Chak 2007, p.
3). Substantial variation in shell
morphology within a particular
Oreohelix colony is common (Pilsbry
1916, p. 340; 1939, p. 415). Conversely,
shell characteristics can be similar in
taxa with different evolutionary
histories but that occupy similar
environments (Chak 2007, p. 3). This
variation within species and colonies,
combined with parallelism that can
occur between unrelated groups, has
long been recognized as a challenge to
correctly identifying Oreohelix
specimens and determining their
distribution (Pilsbry 1916, p. 340).
Distribution and Abundance
The distribution and abundance of
Bearmouth mountainsnail and Byrne
Resort mountainsnail are not well
known. In general, very little is known
about the distribution and status of
terrestrial mollusks in Montana (e.g.,
Hendricks 2003, pp. 3–4). The 2007
petition from WildEarth Guardians and
the NatureServe rankings for both
Bearmouth mountainsnail and Byrne
Resort mountainsnail (e.g., NatureServe
2010a, b) rely entirely on information
contained in the unpublished report by
Frest and Johannes (1995, entire) that
summarized occurrence and
conservation status of mollusks in the
Interior Columbia Basin.
Frest and Johannes (1995, p. 5) stated
that the original distribution of
Bearmouth mountainsnail is the ‘‘Clark
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:08 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
Fork River valley in the area between
Clinton and Garrison, Granite and
Powell counties, Montana,’’ and they
described the present distribution (in
1995) as ‘‘a few very small colonies in
the Bearmouth area.’’ They did not
provide any spatial information about
the actual location of these colonies.
They further speculated that Bearmouth
mountainsnail may occur in the
adjacent lands managed by the U.S.
Forest Service (Lolo National Forest)
and the State of Montana. Little
information about the Bearmouth
mountainsnail has become available
since the report by Frest and Johannes
(1995, p. 115). No occurrences of
Bearmouth mountainsnail were reported
in more recent surveys of terrestrial
mollusks conducted by the Montana
Natural Heritage Program (MNHP)
(Hendricks 2003, entire; Hendricks et al.
2008, entire).
The only potential recent occurrences
of Bearmouth mountainsnail come from
surveys conducted by Dr. Kathleen
Weaver, an assistant professor at the
University of La Verne, California, who
recently began conducting research on
the distribution, ecology, and genetics of
Oreohelix in Montana. Dr. Weaver
reports collecting land snail specimens
from two colonies she believes may be
Bearmouth mountainsnails (Weaver
2010a, 2010b, pers. comm.). The first
colony is located in the Bearmouth area,
and Dr. Weaver believes it is near the
type locality ‘‘Bearmouth’’ location along
the Clark Fork River described in Frest
and Johannes (1995, p. 5; see above).
The second colony is located along Rock
Creek, a left-bank tributary to the Clark
Fork River. The two colonies are
believed to represent the same species
based on genetic similarity measured
using mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA,
maternally-inherited DNA found in
cellular organelles called mitochondria)
(Weaver 2010b, pers. comm.). Dr.
Weaver refers to the two colonies as
‘‘Bearmouth mountainsnail’’ based on
the location of the first colony (Weaver
2010b, pers. comm.). Both colonies are
very small (no more than 5 to 15 square
meters or about 17 to 50 square feet),
and may contain from a few dozen to a
few hundred individuals (Weaver
2010b, pers. comm.).
No information is available on the
current abundance or distribution of
Byrne Resort mountainsnail, or whether
the ‘‘species’’ even exists. The original
distribution of the Byrne Resort
mountainsnail was described by Frest
and Johannes (1995, p. 140) as ‘‘the
Clark Fork River valley near Bearmouth,
Granite County, MT,’’ and they
described the present distribution (in
1995) as ‘‘a few very small colonies in
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the old Byrne Resort area.’’ As with the
Bearmouth mountainsnail, Frest and
Johannes did not provide any accurate
spatial information about the actual
location of these colonies. No
occurrences of Byrne Resort
mountainsnail were reported in more
recent surveys of terrestrial mollusks
conducted by the MNHP (Hendricks
2003, entire; Hendricks et al. 2008,
entire). More recently, neither the
MNHP nor Dr. Weaver (University of La
Verne) have been able to locate a colony
of Oreohelix in the area that Frest and
Johannes (1995, p. 14) reported the
Byrne Resort mountainsnail (Hendricks
2010, pers. comm.; Weaver 2010b, pers.
comm.). It is not known whether the
colonies no longer exist, or if the
original description of Byrne Resort
mountainsnail is incorrect.
Habitat
Factors determining habitat
preferences of land snails include cover,
effective moisture availability, and
geologic history (Frest and Johannes
1995, p. 20). Most land snail species
including those in the genus Oreohelix
are calciphiles, meaning they are
usually restricted to limestone,
dolomite, or other substrates containing
high levels of the element calcium
(Pilsbry 1916, p. 342; Frest and
Johannes 1995, pp. 20–21). Moist soil
conditions are favored and soil pH may
be a factor in determining suitable
habitat (Frest and Johannes 1995, pp.
20–24). Oreohelix are generally
associated with talus (a sloping mass of
loose rock debris at the base of a cliff)
or rocky outcrops, and the occupied
sites may range from low-elevation
canyons and valley bottoms to highelevation slopes well above the treeline
(Hendricks 2003, pp. 4–5).
Taxonomy and Evaluation of the
Listable Entities for Bearmouth
Mountainsnail and Byrne Resort
Mountainsnail
The genus Oreohelix belongs to
phylum Mollusca, class Gastropoda,
order Stylommatophora (terrestrial
snails and slugs), and family
Oreohelicidae. The genus Oreohelix
consists of 41 recognized species
(Turgeon et al. 1998, p. 143; Integrated
Taxonomic Information System (ITIS)
2010). Overall, the taxonomy of the
genus is not well known (Chak 2007, p.
21; Weaver 2006, p. 9), and additional
species have been proposed in the
primary literature (e.g., Ports 2004,
entire), in graduate theses (e.g., Weaver
2006, pp. 49–95), and in grey literature
reports (e.g., Frest and Johannes 1995,
pp. 113–140). The most extreme
example of purported additional
E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM
05APP1
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
taxonomic diversity in Oreohelix is
found in Frest and Johannes (1995, pp.
113–139), who proposed that 31
additional species or subspecies were
found in the Interior Columbia Basin.
The Bearmouth mountainsnail
(Oreohelix sp. 3) and the Byrne Resort
Mountainsnail (Oreohelix sp. 31) were
among these 31 proposed species or
subspecies (Frest and Johannes 1995,
pp. 115, 139–140).
Taxonomic classification of Oreohelix
snails has been based traditionally on
shell morphology (e.g., Pilsbry 1916,
entire; Pilsbry 1939, pp. 413–553).
Nonetheless, shell morphology has long
been considered an unreliable
characteristic for delineating taxonomic
units within Oreohelix because of the
substantial phenotypic plasticity that
exists for shell traits (Pilsbry 1916, p.
340; Chak 2007, pp. 3, 15; Weaver et al.
2008, p. 908). Phenotypic plasticity is
defined as the ability of an individual
genotype (genetic composition) to
produce multiple phenotypes
(observable characteristics or traits) in
response to its environment. There is
wide agreement among malacologists
(the branch of invertebrate zoology that
deals with the study of Mollusca)
familiar with Oreohelix that relying
exclusively on shell morphology to
designate taxa is problematic
(McDonald 2010, pers. comm.; Oliver
2010, pers. comm.; Weaver 2010a, pers.
comm.). More robust taxonomic
designations within genus Oreohelix
generally rely on differences in internal
anatomy, such as penis morphology
(Pilsbry 1916, entire; Pilsbry 1939, pp.
413–553; Chak 2007, p. 15). More
recently, molecular genetic methods
have been used to reconcile taxonomic
designations originally based on
morphological characteristics (e.g., Chak
2007, pp. 21–42; Weaver et al. 2008,
entire).
The basis of the species designations
for the Bearmouth mountainsnail
(Oreohelix sp. 3) and Byrne Resort
mountainsnail (Oreohelix sp. 31) is shell
morphology (Frest and Johannes 1995,
pp. 115, 139–140). Unfortunately, Frest
and Johannes never published any of
their putative (presumed or supposed)
species designations for Oreohelix
contained in their 1995 report. In some
cases, species designations by Frest and
Johannes that relied entirely on shell
morphology were subsequently found to
be in error when additional
morphological (Weaver 2006, p. 10) or
genetic information (Chak 2007, p. 1)
was collected.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:08 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
Taxonomy of the Bearmouth
Mountainsnail (Oreohelix sp. 3)
The only additional information about
the occurrence and taxonomic status of
Bearmouth mountainsnail comes from
Dr. Weaver (Weaver 2010a, 2010b, pers.
comm.). As described above, she
identified two colonies of Oreohelix in
Montana that she believes represent
Bearmouth mountainsnail, based on the
location of one colony and genetic
similarity (of mtDNA) of the two
colonies (Weaver 2010b, pers. comm.).
Dr. Weaver observed that genetic
analyses of individuals from these two
colonies (that she believes to represent
Bearmouth mountainsnail) revealed
approximately 6 percent DNA sequence
divergence relative to a sister taxon (O.
carinifera) in the same genus (Weaver
2010a, pers. comm.). This level of
divergence is consistent with specieslevel differences in terrestrial mollusks
(e.g., Weaver et al. 2008, pp. 913–914).
Thus, there is some evidence to suggest
that the individuals she sequenced are
part of a distinct species or subspecies.
Unfortunately, archived individuals
collected from the putative type location
of Bearmouth mountainsnail (as
described in Frest and Johannes 1995, p.
115) are not available (Weaver 2010b,
pers. comm.). Moreover, Frest and
Johannes did not provide the precise
location of any of the ‘‘type localities’’
(i.e., location where the specimens that
define the species were collected) for
the undescribed species in their 1995
report (Frest and Johannes 1995, pp.
113–140). Consequently, there remains
uncertainty as to whether the
‘‘Bearmouth mountainsnail’’ proposed
by Frest and Johannes (1995, p. 115)
represents the same entity that Dr.
Weaver refers to as ‘‘Bearmouth
mountainsnail.’’
Uncertainty notwithstanding, the
Bearmouth mountainsnail is not
included as a valid taxon in the classic
works by Pilsbry (1916, entire; 1939,
entire), which are still accepted as the
most authoritative publications on the
taxonomy of Oreohelix; nor is the
Bearmouth mountainsnail listed among
the Oreohelix taxa recognized by more
current sources such as the Integrated
Taxonomic Information System (ITIS
2010) or the Council of Systematic
Malacologists and the American
Malacological Union (Turgeon et al.
1998, p. 143 in this compilation of
mollusk taxonomy by scientific experts).
In summary, the entity referred to as the
‘‘Bearmouth mountainsnail’’ has not
been formally described as a species
according to accepted scientific
standards, and this entity is not widely
recognized as a species or subspecies by
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18687
the scientific community. The type of
additional information that may permit
a formal description may include a more
thorough description of the type
specimen, an evaluation of various lines
of evidence (morphological, ecological,
biogeographical, genetic) relevant to its
taxonomic status, resolution of any
discrepancies in taxonomic
nomenclature, or a combination of these
(e.g., Weaver 2006, pp. 49–65), and that
the taxon be accepted as valid by
widely-recognized sources (e.g.,
Turgeon et al. 1998, entire; ITIS 2010).
Taxonomic Status of Byrne Resort
Mountainsnail (Oreohelix sp. 31)
There have been no additional
collections of Byrne Resort
mountainsnail at the location initially
described by Frest and Johannes (1995,
p. 140) (Hendricks 2010, pers. comm.;
Weaver 2010b, pers. comm.). Specimens
collected near where Frest and Johannes
made their collection of Byrne Resort
mountainsnail have been tentatively
identified as a variant of an existing
species (lyrate mountainsnail, Oreohelix
haydeni) based on morphological
characteristics (Hendricks 2010, pers.
comm.). To our knowledge, there has
been no follow-up analysis of any
specimens collected by Frest and
Johannes (1995, pp. 139–140). Thus, we
have virtually no information on this
putative species.
The taxonomic validity of the Byrne
Resort mountainsnail is highly
uncertain given that the only
description was based on shell
morphology, which, as discussed above,
is widely recognized by the scientific
community as a poor trait for defining
taxonomic groups in Oreohelix (Pilsbry
1906, p. 340). Moreover, we are not
aware of any corroborating information
concerning the taxonomic status of this
entity. The Byrne Resort mountainsnail
is not listed as a valid taxon in the
classic works by Pilsbry (1916, entire;
1939, entire), which are still accepted as
the most authoritative publications on
the taxonomy of Oreohelix; nor is the
Byrne Resort mountainsnail listed
among the Oreohelix taxa recognized by
more current sources such as the
Council of Systematic Malacologists
(e.g., Turgeon et al. 1998, p. 143) or the
Integrated Taxonomic Information
System (ITIS 2010). In short, the entity
referred to as ‘‘Byrne Resort
mountainsnail’’ has not been formally
described as a species according to
accepted scientific standards, and this
entity is not widely recognized as a
species or subspecies by the scientific
community. The type of additional
information that may permit a formal
description may include a more
E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM
05APP1
18688
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
thorough description of the type
specimen, an evaluation of various lines
of evidence (morphological, ecological,
biogeographical, genetic) relevant to its
taxonomic status, resolution of any
discrepancies in taxonomic
nomenclature, or a combination of these
(e.g., Weaver 2006, pp. 49–65), and that
the taxon be accepted as valid by
widely-recognized sources (e.g.,
Turgeon et al. 1998, entire; ITIS 2010).
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Finding for the Bearmouth
Mountainsnail (Oreohelix sp. 3) and
Byrne Resort Mountainsnail (Oreohelix
sp. 31)
We have very little information on the
distribution and abundance of these two
land snails. In fact, we could not find
any information on occurrence or even
the existence of the species referred to
as the ‘‘Byrne Resort mountainsnail’’ by
Frest and Johannes (1995, p. 139). We
have some information, based on recent
surveys and genetic analyses, that two
colonies of land snails tentatively
identified by a species expert as
‘‘Bearmouth mountainsnail’’ currently
exist in the vicinity of the Clark Fork
River valley, Montana (Weaver 2010a,
2010b, pers. comm.). To our knowledge,
there has never been a systematic
analysis of the validity of taxonomic
arrangements (i.e., subspecies or
species) that have been proposed for
Oreohelix by Frest and Johannes (1995,
pp. 113–140). Moreover, neither the
Bearmouth mountainsnail nor the Byrne
Resort mountainsnail has been formally
described as a species, and neither is
presently recognized as a species or
subspecies by the scientific community
(e.g., Pilsbry 1939, entire; Turgeon et al.
1998, p. 143; ITIS 2010).
Neither the Bearmouth mountainsnail
nor the Byrne Resort mountainsnail is
recognized as a species or subspecies,
and their taxonomic statuses are
currently uncertain. Consequently, the
Service does not at this time consider
the Bearmouth mountainsnail or the
Byrne Resort mountainsnail to be
listable entities under section 3(16) of
the Act (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)) because
they do not belong to taxa currently
recognized by the scientific community.
The Service encourages additional
scientific investigations that will resolve
the significant uncertainties concerning
the occurrence and taxonomy of
Oreohelix land snails. Because we have
concluded the Bearmouth
mountainsnail and the Byrne Resort
mountainsnail are not listable entities,
we will not be further evaluating these
mountainsnails under section 4(a)(1) of
the Act, and they will not be discussed
further in this finding.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:08 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
Species Information for the Meltwater
Lednian Stonefly
Species Description and Taxonomy
The meltwater lednian stonefly
(Lednia tumana) is in the monotypic
genus Lednia (Baumann 1975, p. 19;
Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 263; Stark
et al. 2009, entire). The genus Lednia
belongs to the phylum Arthropoda, class
Insecta, order Plecoptera (stoneflies),
family Nemouridae, and subfamily
Nemourinae. The family Nemouridae is
the largest in the order Plecoptera
(stoneflies), comprising more than 370
species in 17 genera (Baumann 1975, p.
1). In North America, family
Nemouridae comprises 73 species in 13
genera (Stark et al. 2009, entire). The
type specimens for the meltwater
lednian stonefly were collected in the
Many Glaciers area of Glacier National
Park (Glacier NP), Montana (Baumann
1982, pers. comm.). The species was
originally described by Ricker in 1952
(Baumann 1975, p. 18), and is
recognized as a valid species by the
scientific community (e.g., Baumann
1975, p. 18; Baumann et al. 1977, pp. 7,
34; Newell et al. 2008, p. 181; Stark et
al. 2009, entire). Consequently, we
conclude that the meltwater lednian
stonefly (Lednia tumana) is a valid
species and, therefore, a listable entity
under section 3(16) of the Act.
Kondratieff and Lechleitner (2002, pp.
385, 391) reported that specimens
thought to be the meltwater lednian
stonefly were collected in Mount
Rainier National Park (Mount Rainier
NP), Washington. They also cited a
personal communication with a species
expert (R.W. Baumann, Brigham Young
University, Provo, UT) that similar
specimens also are known from North
Cascades National Park (North Cascades
NP), Washington, and a site in the
California Sierra Nevada (Kondratieff
and Lechleitner 2002, pp. 388–389).
However, the specimens discovered in
Mount Rainier NP, North Cascades NP,
and in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of
California are now believed to represent
additional undescribed taxa
(presumably in the genus Lednia) that
await formal description (Baumann
2010, pers. comm.; Kondratieff 2010,
pers. comm.; Kondratieff et al. 2006, p.
463). If these specimens are described as
species in the genus Lednia, then the
genus Lednia would no longer be
considered a monotypic genus.
However, the taxonomy of these
additional specimens (from Mount
Rainier NP, North Cascades NP, and in
the Sierra Nevada Mountains of
California) has not been evaluated or
accepted by the scientific community
(e.g., Stark et al. 2009, entire). Thus,
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
while there is some preliminary
indication that the taxonomy of the
genus Lednia will be revised when the
new specimens are officially described,
the meltwater lednian stonefly remains
the only species in the genus Lednia
that is currently recognized by the
scientific community. Consequently,
based on the information presented
above, the Service considers Lednia to
be a monotypic genus. Therefore, for the
purpose of this finding, we are
evaluating the meltwater lednian
stonefly, throughout its known range, as
a full species in a monotypic genus.
The nymph (aquatic juvenile stage) of
the meltwater lednian stonefly is dark
red-brown on its dorsal (top) surface
and pink on the ventral (lower) surface,
with light grey-green legs (Baumann and
Stewart 1980, p. 658). Mature nymphs
can range in size from 4.5 to 6.5
millimeter (mm) (0.18 to 0.26 in.)
(Baumann and Stewart 1980, p. 655).
Adults also are small, ranging in size
from 4 to 6 mm (0.16 to 0.24 in.)
(Baumann 1975, p. 19).
Biology and Life History
Plecoptera (stoneflies) are primarily
associated with clean, cool, running
waters (Stewart and Harper 1996, p.
217). The Nemourids are usually the
dominant Plecoptera family in
mountain-river ecosystems, both in
terms of total biomass and in numbers
of species present (Baumann 1975, p. 1).
Eggs and larvae of all North American
species of stoneflies, including the
meltwater lednian stonefly, are aquatic
(Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 217).
Nemourid stonefly larvae are typically
herbivores or detritivores, and their
feeding mode is generally that of a
shredder or collector-gatherer (Baumann
1975, p. 1; Stewart and Harper 1996, pp.
218, 262). We have no information on
the longevity of the meltwater lednian
stonefly, but in general stoneflies can
complete their life cycles within a single
year (univoltine) or in 2 to 3 years
(semivoltine) (Stewart and Harper 1996,
pp. 217–218). Adult meltwater lednian
stoneflies are thought to emerge and
breed in August and September
(Baumann and Stewart 1980, p. 658;
Giersch 2010b, pers. comm.; MNHP
2010a).
Distribution and Abundance
The current known distribution of the
meltwater lednian stonefly is restricted
to a handful of locations just to the east
and west of the Continental Divide
within Glacier NP (Newell et al. 2008,
p. 181; National Park Service (NPS)
2009; see Table 1 below). Within the last
13 years, the meltwater lednian stonefly
has been observed in a total of 11
E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM
05APP1
18689
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
streams within Glacier NP, at sites
ranging from 1,628 to 2,378 meters (m)
elevation (5,341 to 7,801 feet (ft)) (NPS
2009; see Table 1 below). Most
collection sites have been in close
proximity to glaciers. The species can
attain moderate to high abundance in
certain locations (e.g., Logan Creek:
Baumann and Stewart 1980, p. 658; NPS
2009, entire).
TABLE 1—DOCUMENTED OCCURRENCES OF MELTWATER LEDNIAN STONEFLY (LEDNIA TUMANA) DURING THE LAST 13
YEARS. ALL OCCURRENCES ARE WITHIN GLACIER NP, MONTANA. INFORMATION PROVIDED BY NPS (2009) BASED
ON DATA COLLECTED BY F. RICHARD HAUER (FLATHEAD LAKE BIOLOGICAL STATION, DIVISION OF BIOLOGICAL
SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA, POLSON) AND JOE GIERSCH (DRUNELLADESIGNS.COM, WEST GLACIER, MONTANA)
Stream or drainage
Year
Elevation
East of the Continental Divide (Glacier County, Montana)
Baring Creek a ...............................................................................................................................
1998
1999
2003
2009
1999
2003
2009
1997
Lunch Creek a b ..............................................................................................................................
Reynolds Creek a b ........................................................................................................................
1998
St. Mary River a .............................................................................................................................
Swiftcurrent Creek a ......................................................................................................................
Twin Lakes (St. Mary River) .........................................................................................................
1999
2007
1998
2,378
2,173
2,273
2,024
2,173
2,273
2,024
2,171
2,170
2,140
2,106
2,165
2,169
2,068
2,099
2,165
2,054
1,628
2,265
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
(7,801
(7,129
(7,457
(6,640
(7,129
(7,457
(6,640
(7,123
(7,119
(7,021
(6,909
(7,103
(7,116
(6,785
(6,886
(7,103
(6,739
(5,341
(7,431
ft).
ft).
ft).
ft).
ft).
ft).
ft).
ft).
ft).
ft).
ft).
ft).
ft).
ft).
ft).
ft).
ft).
ft).
ft).
2,065
1,696
2,302
2,115
2,031
2,017
m
m
m
m
m
m
(6,775
(5,564
(7,552
(6,939
(6,663
(6,617
ft).
ft).
ft).
ft).
ft).
ft)
West of the Continental Divide (Flathead County, Montana)
Ahern Creek ..................................................................................................................................
Bear Creek ....................................................................................................................................
Hidden Lake (Hidden Creek) ........................................................................................................
Logan Creek a b .............................................................................................................................
1998
2001
1998
1998
Mineral Creek ...............................................................................................................................
1997
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Collection Location Details
a Stream directly associated with a named glacier within that watershed or an unnamed glacier present on a 7.5′ topographic map.
b Multiple collections within a stream are itemized by year and elevation.
Although the species has been
observed recently only in Glacier NP,
experts speculate that suitable habitat
for the species may extend north into
Waterton Lakes National Park in Canada
and south into the Scapegoat-Great
Bear-Bob Marshall wilderness areas of
Montana, or in similar areas of the
northern Rocky Mountains in alpine
snow-melt streams (e.g., Baumann 1982,
pers. comm.; Giersch 2010a, pers.
comm.). The species was previously
reported from the Waterton River
system in Alberta (Donald and
Anderson 1977, p. 114). However,
surveys conducted in Waterton Lakes
National Park (Canada) during 2007 and
2008 did not detect the species (Langor
2010, pers. comm.), although it is
unclear if the proper habitat was
surveyed (Johnston 2010, pers. comm.).
In general, little information exists
about the meltwater lednian stonefly,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:29 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
and additional surveys are needed in
order to develop a more thorough
understanding of its distribution and
abundance (e.g., Giersch 2010a, 2010b,
pers. comm.). In the interim, we
conclude based on the available recent
survey information that the meltwater
lednian stonefly is a narrow endemic
present only in Glacier NP.
Habitat
The meltwater lednian stonefly is
found in snow-melt runoff streams in
high-elevation, alpine areas, most
typically in locations closely linked to
glacial runoff (Baumann and Stewart
1980, p. 658; MNHP 2010a) or alpine
springs (Hauer et al. 2007, p. 107;
Giersch 2010c, pers. comm.). The
species is considered a cold-water
stenotherm restricted to water less than
(<) 10 degrees Celsius (°C) (< 50 degrees
Fahrenheit (°F)) (MNHP 2010a), but
apparently it can tolerate higher water
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
temperatures (up to 15 °C (59 °F)) in
certain situations (Hauer et al. 2007, p.
107) for short periods of time (Giersch
2010c, pers. comm.). Most aquatic
invertebrates in stream environments in
the northern Rocky Mountains exhibit
very strong elevation (temperature)
gradients in their distribution (e.g.,
Fagre et al. 1997, p. 763; Lowe and
Hauer 1999, pp. 1637, 1640, 1642;
Hauer et al. 2007, p. 110), and occur at
the highest population density in their
preferred temperature range. We
presume the meltwater lednian stonefly
exhibits a similar pattern, in terms of
being more likely to be present and
more abundant in the small (first order),
cold, snowmelt-driven, alpine streams,
and less likely to occur farther
downstream within a drainage in larger
habitats (second order and larger
streams) with warmer water
temperatures. In general, the alpine
E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM
05APP1
18690
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
streams inhabited by the meltwater
lednian stonefly are presumed to have
very low nutrient concentrations (low
nitrogen and phosphorus), reflecting the
nutrient content of the glacial or snowmelt source (Hauer et al. 2007, pp. 107–
108). The daytime microhabitat
preferences of meltwater lednian
stonefly nymphs are the underside of
rocks or larger pieces of bark or wood
(Baumann and Stewart 1980, p. 658).
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Summary of Information Pertaining to
the Five Factors for the Meltwater
Lednian Stonefly
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and its implementing regulations (50
CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the
Act, a species may be determined to be
endangered or threatened based on any
of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
In making this finding, information
pertaining to meltwater lednian stonefly
in relation to the five factors provided
in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed
below.
In considering what factors might
constitute threats to a species, we must
look beyond the exposure of the species
to a factor to evaluate whether the
species may respond to the factor in a
way that causes actual impacts to the
species. If there is exposure to a factor
and the species responds negatively, the
factor may be a threat and we attempt
to determine how significant a threat it
is. The threat is significant if it drives,
or contributes to, the risk of extinction
of the species such that the species
warrants listing as endangered or
threatened as those terms are defined in
the Act.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
The known distribution of the
meltwater lednian stonefly is entirely
within the boundaries of Glacier NP.
The ecosystems in most national parks
are considered to be comparatively
pristine, and the Glacier NP is a
relatively unaltered landscape when
compared to other areas of western
North America (Fagre 2005, p. 2).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:08 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
Climate Change
Climate is influenced primarily by
long-term patterns in air temperature
and precipitation. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) has concluded that
climate warming is unequivocal, and is
now evident from observed increases in
global average air and ocean
temperatures, widespread melting of
snow and ice, and rising global mean
sea level (IPCC 2007, pp. 30–31).
Continued greenhouse gas emissions at
or above current rates are expected to
cause further warming (IPCC 2007, p.
30). The years from 1995 through 2006
rank among the 12 warmest years in the
instrumental record of global average
near-surface temperature since 1850
(Independent Scientific Advisory Board
(ISAB) 2007, p. 7; IPCC 2007, p. 30).
During the last century, mean annual air
temperature increased by approximately
0.6 °C (1.1 °F) (IPCC 2007, p. 30).
Warming appears to have accelerated in
recent decades, as the linear warming
trend over the 50 years from 1956 to
2005 (average 0.13 °C or 0.24 °F per
decade) is nearly twice that for the 100
years from 1906 to 2005 (IPCC 2007, p.
30). Climate change scenarios estimate
that the mean air temperature could
increase by over 3 °C (5.4 °F) by 2100
(IPCC 2007, pp. 45–46). The IPCC also
projects there will likely be regional
increases in the frequency of hot
extremes, heat waves, and heavy
precipitation, as well as greater warming
in high northern latitudes (IPCC 2007,
p. 46).
We recognize that there are scientific
differences of opinion on many aspects
of climate change, including the role of
natural variability in climate. In our
analysis, we rely primarily on synthesis
documents (IPCC 2007, entire; ISAB
2007, entire; Karl et al. 2009, entire) that
present the consensus view of a large
number of experts on climate change
from around the world. We find that
these synthesis reports, as well as the
scientific papers used in, or resulting
from, those reports represent the best
available scientific information we can
use to inform our decision. Where
possible, we use empirical data or
projections specific to Glacier NP and
the surrounding area and focus on
observed or expected effects on stream
systems, as this area includes the known
distribution of the meltwater lednian
stonefly.
Water temperature and hydrology
(stream flow) influence many of the
basic physical and biological processes
in aquatic systems, and both are
sensitive to environmental changes that
result from climate change (e.g., Stewart
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
et al. 2005, entire; Isaak et al. 2010,
entire; Kaushal et al. 2010, entire). For
ectothermic organisms like aquatic
invertebrates, temperature sets basic
constraints on species’ distribution and
physiological performance (Fagre et al.
1997, p. 763; Lowe and Hauer 1999, pp.
1637, 1640, 1642; Hauer et al. 2007, p.
110). Stream hydrology not only affects
the structure of aquatic systems across
space and time, but influences the life
history and phenology (timing of lifecycle events) of aquatic invertebrates
such as stoneflies (Stewart and Harper
1996, pp. 217–218).
Significant trends in water
temperature and stream flow have been
observed in the western United States
(Stewart et al. 2005, entire; Kaushal et
al. 2010, entire), and increased air
temperatures and changes in
precipitation are partially responsible.
During the past 50 to 100 years in the
western United States, the timing of
runoff from snowmelt has shifted to
occur 1 to 4 weeks earlier (Regonda et
al. 2005, p. 380; Stewart et al. 2005, pp.
1136, 1141; Hamlet et al. 2007, p. 1468),
presumably as a result of increased
temperatures (Hamlet et al. 2007, p.
1468), increased frequency of melting
(Mote et al. 2005, p. 45), and decreased
snowpack (Mote et al. 2005, p. 41).
Trends in decreased water availability
also are apparent across the Pacific
Northwest. For example, Luce and
Holden (2009, entire) found a tendency
toward more extreme droughts at 72
percent of the stream flow gages they
examined across Idaho, Montana,
Oregon, and Washington.
The western United States appears to
be warming faster than the global
average. In the Pacific Northwest,
regionally averaged temperatures have
risen 0.8 °C (1.5 °F) over the last century
and as much as 2 °C (4 °F) in some
areas. Since 1900, the mean annual air
temperature for Glacier NP and the
surrounding region has increased 1.33
°C, which is 1.8 times the global mean
increase (U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
2010, p. 1). Mean annual air
temperatures are projected to increase
by another 1.5 to 5.5 °C (3 to 10 °F) over
the next 100 years (Karl et al. 2009, p.
135). Warming also appears to be very
pronounced in alpine regions globally
(e.g., Hall and Fagre 2003, p. 134 and
references therein).
For the purposes of this finding, we
consider the foreseeable future for
anticipated environmental changes such
as reductions in glacial meltwater and
increases in stream temperatures to be
approximately 40 years based on two
factors. First, various global climate
models (GCMs) and emissions scenarios
give consistent predictions within that
E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM
05APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
timeframe (Ray et al. 2010, p. 11).
Second, the effect of climate change on
glaciers in Glacier NP has been modeled
within that time range (e.g., Hall and
Fagre 2003, entire). We used a similar
foreseeable future time period when
considering climate change projections
in other 12-month findings for species
in western North America (see
American pika (Ochotona princeps), 75
FR 6438, February 9, 2010; Arctic
grayling (Thymallus arcticus), 75 FR
54708, September 8, 2010).
While projected patterns of warming
across North America are generally
consistent across different GCMs and
emissions scenarios (Ray et al. 2010, p.
22), there tends to be less agreement
among models for whether mean annual
precipitation will increase or decrease,
but the models seem to indicate an
increase in precipitation in winter and
a decrease in summer (Ray et al. 2010,
pp. 22–23). In the foreseeable future,
natural variation will likely confound a
clear prediction for precipitation based
on current climate models (Ray et al.
2010, p. 29). Although there is
considerable uncertainty about how
climate will evolve at any specific
location, statistically downscaled
climate projection models (models that
predict climate at finer spatial
resolution than GCMs) for the western
United States also support widespread
warming, with warmer temperature
zones shifting to the north and upward
in elevation (Ray et al. 2010, pp. 23–24).
Based on the information described
above, we believe that environmental
changes resulting from climate change
may affect the meltwater lednian
stonefly through two primary
mechanisms: (1) Loss of glaciers, and
(2) changes in hydrology and increased
water temperature.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Glacier Loss
Environmental changes resulting from
climate change are assumed to be
directly related to the well-documented
loss of glaciers in Glacier NP (e.g., Hall
and Fagre 2003, entire; Fagre 2005,
entire). Glacier NP contained
approximately 150 glaciers larger than
0.1 square kilometer (25 acres) in size
when established in 1910, but presently
only 25 glaciers larger than 0.1 square
kilometers in size (25 acres) remain in
the park (Fagre 2005, pp. 1–3; USGS
2005, 2010). Between 1966 and 2006,
the 25 largest glaciers (those that are
presently believed to be larger than 0.1
square kilometer (25 acres) in area)
shrank by an average of 26.4 percent,
whereas smaller glaciers (those that are
presently believed to be smaller than 0.1
square kilometer (25 acres) in area)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:08 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
shrank at more than twice that rate (59.7
percent) (USGS 2010).
Hall and Fagre (2003, entire) modeled
the effects of climate change on glaciers
in Glacier NP’s Blackfoot-Jackson basin
using then-current climate assumptions
(doubling of atmospheric carbon
dioxide by 2030). Current climate
change publications consider scenarios
with higher anticipated carbon dioxide
concentrations and associated
temperature changes. However, we are
not aware of any other published
studies using more recent climate
scenarios that speak directly to
anticipated conditions in Glacier NP, so
we use Hall and Fagre’s predictions in
our analysis. Under this scenario, they
predicted that increases in winter
precipitation would not be able to buffer
glacial shrinking, and the BlackfootJackson glaciers, which are among the
largest in Glacier NP, would disappear
entirely by 2030 (Hall and Fagre 2003,
pp. 137–138).
Glacial shrinking varies by
topography (structure and position of
land underlying the glaciers), with the
result that glaciers shrink at different
rates (e.g., Key et al. 2002, p. J370; Hall
and Fagre 2003, p. 136). Given the
greater relative rate of shrinkage
observed in smaller glaciers (e.g., USGS
2010), we presume that if Hall and
Fagre’s projections are correct, then
nearly all glaciers should be gone from
Glacier NP by 2030. We base our
analysis as to whether climate change
threatens the meltwater lednian stonefly
on this assumption.
The consequences of glacier shrinking
and glacier loss to aquatic systems
inhabited by the meltwater lednian
stonefly in Glacier NP are expected to be
significant (e.g., Fagre 2005, p. 8).
Glaciers act as water banks, whose
continual melt helps regulate stream
water temperatures and maintain
streamflows during late summer or
drought periods (Hauer et al. 2007, p.
107; USGS 2010). Loss of glaciers may
lead to direct dewatering of headwater
stream reaches, thus desiccating
(drying) habitats currently occupied by
lednian stoneflies that are often in close
proximity to glaciers (e.g., Baumann and
Stewart 1980, p. 658). Permanent
desiccation (i.e., no streamflow)
resulting from loss of glaciers is
expected to result directly in the loss of
suitable habitat for the meltwater
lednian stonefly and the extirpation of
populations that are directly dependent
on surface runoff from melting glaciers.
In some cases, streams might change
from perennial (always flowing) to
ephemeral (only flowing seasonally) as
glaciers disappear (Hauer et al. 1997, p.
909). A transition from perennial to
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18691
ephemeral streamflow also is expected
to reduce the extent of habitat suitable
for the meltwater lednian stonefly;
however, the actual response may be
more complex in this scenario. For
example, adults of the species emerge
(transition from aquatic larvae to
terrestrial winged adults) and reproduce
in the short time period in August and
September when the streams are not
covered with seasonal snowpack. The
species is thus adapted to reproduce in
a very narrow ecological window. If the
stream only flows seasonally, the
species may still be able to complete its
life cycle if the nymph (larval) stage can
withstand seasonal stream drying. We
do not know whether the species can
complete its entire life cycle within 1
year (univoltine) or across more than 1
year (semivoltine), nor do we have
projections for which streams may dry
seasonally in Glacier NP. Therefore, at
this time we cannot accurately predict
the response of the species in cases
where streams change from perennial to
ephemeral. However, we do presume
that this change will, at a minimum,
reduce the distribution and abundance
of the species.
Loss of glaciers also may indirectly
affect alpine streams by changing the
riparian vegetation and nutrient cycling
in stream ecosystems. For example, the
reduced snowpacks that lead to glacier
recession are predicted to allow highelevation trees to become established
above the current treeline and in
subalpine meadows, and thus to reduce
the diversity of herbaceous plants (Hall
and Fagre 2003, pp. 138–139). Changes
in riparian vegetation (such as a shift
from deciduous to coniferous
vegetation) may affect nutrient cycling
in headwater streams and the quality of
food resources available to herbivorous
aquatic insects (e.g., Hisabae et al. 2010,
pp. 5–7), such as the meltwater lednian
stonefly and other aquatic
macroinvertebrates.
Changes to Streamflow and Water
Temperature
Reduced water volume of snowmelt
runoff from glaciers (Fagre 2005, p. 7),
combined with earlier runoff (e.g., Fagre
2005, p. 1) and increases in
temperatures expected under climate
change (Karl et al. 2009, p. 135), may
result in water temperatures above the
physiological limits for survival or
optimal growth for the meltwater
lednian stonefly, which is a cold-water
species (MNHP 2010a). Given the strong
temperature gradients that influence the
distribution of aquatic invertebrates
(Fagre et al. 1997, p. 763; Lowe and
Hauer 1999, pp. 1637, 1640, 1642;
Hauer et al. 2007, p. 110) and our
E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM
05APP1
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
18692
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
assumption that the meltwater lednian
stonefly responds similarly to these
types of gradients, we expect that there
will be major changes in invertebrate
communities, with species that
currently occupy more downstream
reaches shifting their distributions to
higher elevations to track changing
thermal regimes (e.g., Fagre 2005, p. 7).
One likely result is the displacement or
extirpation or both of stenothermic
species that occupy headwater stream
reaches (such as the meltwater lednian
stonefly), due to thermal conditions that
become unsuitable, encroaching aquatic
invertebrate species that may be
superior competitors, or changed
thermal conditions that may favor the
encroaching species in competitive
interactions between the species (socalled condition-specific competition).
Consequently, we infer that changes in
the timing and volume of streamflow
coupled with increased summer water
temperatures will reduce the extent of
suitable habitat and result in the
extirpation of some meltwater lednian
stonefly populations.
In summary, we expect environmental
changes resulting from climate change
to affect the meltwater lednian stonefly
through loss of glaciers, which can lead
to the permanent or seasonal drying of
currently occupied habitats, and
through interrelated alterations to
existing hydrologic and thermal
regimes, which will reduce the extent of
habitat suitable for this species because
it has very specific thermal
requirements (i.e., it is a cold-water
obligate). Environmental changes
resulting from climate change are
ongoing based on the documented
shrinking of glaciers in Glacier NP, and
are expected to continue in the
foreseeable future in Glacier NP (e.g.,
Fagre and Hall 2003, entire) and across
western North America (USGS 2010,
p.1; Karl et al. 2009, p. 135).
Consequently, we conclude that the
threat of current and future
environmental changes resulting from
climate change occurs over the entire
range of the species. This threat has
likely reduced the amount of suitable
habitat for the meltwater lednian
stonefly, based on the documented
extent of glacial melting. However, data
on the species is sparse and limited to
a handful of observations (e.g., see Table
1 above). Thus, we have no empirical
basis for evaluating whether there are
any trends in the occurrence or
abundance of the species, nor can we
speak to whether environmental
changes resulting from climate change
have actually affected populations. We
reason that future environmental
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:08 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
changes resulting from climate change
will likely result in the extirpation of
populations of the meltwater lednian
stonefly because of stream drying and
increased water temperatures, and that
there will be substantial reductions in
the amount of suitable habitat for the
species relative to its current range.
Effects on populations found in spring
habitats may lag behind those found in
stream habitats directly associated with
melting glaciers or snowfields.
Chemical, hydrologic, and thermal
conditions of both habitat types are
ultimately influenced by melting snow
and ice, but conditions in spring
habitats are more stable (e.g., Hauer et
al. 2007, p. 107; Giersch 2010c, pers.
comm.) and should change more slowly
because their groundwater sources are
storing water from melted snow and ice.
Ultimately, spring habitats might also
dry as their groundwater sources are
depleted, and not replenished by glacial
meltwater.
The impacts of environmental
changes resulting from climate change
will likely continue within the
foreseeable future (40 years). Due to the
magnitude and extent of the effects of
the environmental changes resulting
from climate change, we conclude that
the environmental changes resulting
from climate change constitute a
significant threat to the meltwater
lednian stonefly in the foreseeable
future.
Maintenance and Improvement of
Glacier National Park Infrastructure
Glacier NP is managed to protect
natural and cultural resources, and the
landscape within the park is relatively
pristine. However, the Glacier NP does
include a number of human-built
facilities and structures, such as the
Going-to-the-Sun Road (which bisects
the Glacier NP) and numerous visitor
centers, trailheads, overlooks, and
lodges (e.g., NPS 2003a, pp. S3, 11).
Maintenance and improvement of these
facilities and structures could
conceivably lead to disturbance of the
natural environment.
One major project initiated in 2003,
and that is ongoing as of 2011, is the
improvement of the Going-to-the-Sun
Road (NPS 2003a; 2003b). This road
parallels or bisects a number of streams
in the Glacier NP including McDonald,
Logan, Lunch, Siyeh, and Baring Creeks
(NPS 2003a, p. 134). Localized land
disturbance associated with
construction activities could lead to
introduction of sediment into stream
channels (e.g., NPS 2003a, pp. S18–S19,
74). However, the collection sites for the
meltwater lednian stonefly in streams
adjacent to or bisected by the road (e.g.,
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Logan, Lunch, and Baring Creeks; see
Table 1 above) are all upstream from the
road. We anticipate that any disturbance
to aquatic habitats from road
construction would occur in the
immediate vicinity of the construction
and that any impacts (i.e., sediment
input) would be translated downstream.
Thus, we conclude that road
maintenance does not constitute a threat
to the meltwater lednian stonefly or its
habitat now or in the foreseeable future.
We do not have any information
indicating maintenance and
improvement of other Glacier NP
facilities and structures is affecting the
species. Most documented occurrences
of meltwater lednian stonefly are in
remote locations upstream from humanbuilt structures; thus we conclude that
maintenance and improvement of other
Glacier NP facilities and structures does
not constitute a threat to the meltwater
lednian stonefly or its habitat now or in
the foreseeable future.
Glacier National Park Visitor Impacts
Between 2000 to 2008, Glacier NP
averaged more than 1.8 million visitors
annually (NPS 2008). Many of the recent
collection sites for the meltwater
lednian stonefly (e.g., Logan and
Reynolds Creeks; see Table 1 above) are
near visitor centers or adjacent to
popular hiking trails. Theoretically,
human activity (wading) in streams by
anglers or hikers could disturb
meltwater lednian stonefly habitat.
However, we consider it unlikely that
many Glacier NP visitors would actually
wade in stream habitats where the
species has been collected, because the
sites are in small, high-elevation streams
situated in rugged terrain, and most
would not be suitable for angling. In
addition, the sites are typically snow
covered into late July or August (Giersch
2010a, pers. comm.), and the alpine
areas begin to accumulate snowpack in
the fall, so the sites occupied by the
stonefly are not accessible for more than
a few months. We also note that the
most accessible collection sites in Logan
Creek near the Logan Pass Visitor Center
and the Going-to-the-Sun Road (so
called ‘‘Jones Flat’’ at Oberlin Bend) are
currently closed to public use and entry
to protect resident vegetation (NPS
2010, pp. J5, J24). We conclude that
impacts to the meltwater lednian
stonefly and its habitat from public
visitors to Glacier NP do not constitute
a threat now or in the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor A
Climate change, and the associated
effects of glacier loss, reduced
streamflows, and increased water
temperatures, is expected to
E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM
05APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
significantly reduce the occurrence of
populations and extent of suitable
habitat for the meltwater lednian
stonefly in Glacier NP in the foreseeable
future. Nearly all known recent
occurrences of the meltwater lednian
stonefly are in close proximity to
glaciers that are projected to disappear
during the next 20 years. Consequently,
we expect that the environmental
changes resulting from climate change
will significantly alter the habitat of all
extant populations of the meltwater
lednian stonefly, and we conclude that
the loss of glaciers represents a highintensity threat (i.e., one that results in
dramatic changes to the species’ habitat
and distribution) and that this threat is,
and will continue to be, large in scope
(most, if not all, known populations will
be affected) now and into the
foreseeable future. The significant
reduction in glacier size observed
during the past 40 years is evidence that
the environmental changes resulting
from climate change also may represent
a current threat to this species, but we
do not have any information on trends
in the occurrence of meltwater lednian
stonefly populations or changes in
densities of specific populations to
confirm this. In addition, we anticipate
that effects of the environmental
changes resulting from climate change
on the species will become more
pronounced, or that they will accelerate
in the foreseeable future, as glaciers
melt and eventually disappear in
Glacier NP. In conclusion, we find that
the meltwater lednian stonefly is likely
to become in danger of extinction in the
foreseeable future because of the
environmental changes resulting from
climate change.
Factor B. Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
We are not aware of any threats
involving the overutilization or
collection of the meltwater lednian
stonefly (Lednia tumana) for any
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes at this time. We
are aware that specimens are
occasionally collected for scientific
purposes to determine its distribution
and abundance (e.g., Baumann and
Stewart 1980, pp. 655, 658; NPS 2009);
however, the species is observed to be
relatively abundant in preferred habitats
(e.g., NPS 2009). We have no
information that suggests past
collections, current collections, or any
collections in the foreseeable future will
result in population-level effects to the
species. Consequently, we do not
consider overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:08 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
purposes to be a threat to the meltwater
lednian stonefly.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
We are not aware of any diseases that
affect the meltwater lednian stonefly.
Therefore, we do not consider disease to
be a threat to the species now or in the
foreseeable future.
We presume that nymph and adult
meltwater lednian stoneflies may
occasionally be subject to predation by
bird species such as the American
dipper (Cinclus mexicanus). The
American dipper prefers to feed on
aquatic invertebrates in fast-moving,
clear, alpine streams (MNHP 2010b),
and the species is native to Glacier NP.
As such, predation by American dipper
on the meltwater lednian stonefly
would represent a natural ecological
interaction in the Glacier NP. We have
no evidence that the extent of such
predation, if it occurs, represents any
population-level threat to the meltwater
lednian stonefly. Therefore, we do not
consider predation to be a threat to the
species now or in the foreseeable future.
In summary, there is currently no
scientific evidence to indicate that the
meltwater lednian stonefly is affected by
any diseases, or that any avian
predation that occurs constitutes an
abnormal (above background-level)
predator-prey interaction likely to have
adverse population-wide effects.
Therefore, we do not find disease or
predation to be threats to the meltwater
lednian stonefly now or in the
forseeable future.
Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
The Act requires us to examine the
adequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms with respect to those
existing and foreseeable threats that
place the meltwater lednian stonefly in
danger of becoming either endangered
or threatened. The currently
documented distribution of the species
is within the boundaries of Glacier NP,
which is under the jurisdiction of the
National Park Service (NPS). Thus, there
are a number of Federal laws and
regulations that may be relevant.
National Environmental Policy Act
All Federal agencies are required to
adhere to the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.) for projects they fund,
authorize, or carry out. The Council on
Environmental Quality’s regulations for
implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500–
1518) state that, when preparing
environmental impact statements,
agencies shall include a discussion on
the environmental impacts of the
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18693
various project alternatives, any adverse
environmental effects which cannot be
avoided, and any irreversible or
irretrievable commitments of resources
involved (40 CFR 1502). The NEPA
itself is a disclosure law, and does not
require subsequent minimization or
mitigation measures by the Federal
agency involved. Although the NPS may
include conservation measures for
meltwater lednian stonefly or any other
species as a result of the NEPA process,
any such measures are typically
voluntary in nature and are not required
by NEPA.
National Park Service Organic Act
The NPS Organic Act of 1916 (16
U.S.C. 1 et seq.), as amended, states that
the NPS ‘‘shall promote and regulate the
use of the Federal areas known as
national parks, monuments, and
reservations * * * to conserve the
scenery and the national and historic
objects and the wild life therein and to
provide for the enjoyment of the same
in such manner and by such means as
will leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations.’’ The
current distribution of the meltwater
lednian stonefly is entirely within the
boundaries of Glacier NP, so the NPS
Organic Act is presumed to be one
Federal law of particular relevance to
the species. Although Glacier NP does
not have a management plan specific to
the meltwater lednian stonefly, the
habitats occupied by the species remain
relatively pristine and generally free
from direct human impacts from Glacier
NP visitors (see discussion under Factor
A). We also note that the most
accessible meltwater lednian collection
sites in Logan Creek near the Logan Pass
Visitor Center and the Going-to-the-Sun
Road (so called ‘‘Jones Flat’’ at Oberlin
Bend) are currently closed to public use
and entry to protect resident vegetation
under Glacier NP management
regulations (NPS 2010, pp. J5, J24). We
believe that the NPS Organic Act
provides adequate protection from the
species and its habitat being directly
destroyed or modified by most human
activities, including visitor use and
development. However, the NPS
Organic Act does not address the
primary threat to the species of habitat
loss resulting from the environmental
changes due to climate change.
Therefore, the Organic Act does not
constitute an adequate regulatory
mechanism for this threat.
Clean Air Act
On December 15, 2009, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published in the Federal Register (74
FR 66496) a rule titled, ‘‘Endangerment
E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM
05APP1
18694
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a)
of the Clean Air Act.’’ In this rule, the
EPA Administrator found that the
current and projected concentrations of
the six long-lived and directly emitted
greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxide,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons,
and sulfur hexafluoride—in the
atmosphere threaten the public health
and welfare of current and future
generations; and that the combined
emissions of these greenhouse gases
from new motor vehicles and new motor
vehicle engines contribute to the
greenhouse gas pollution that threatens
public health and welfare (74 FR
66496). In effect, the EPA has concluded
that the greenhouse gases linked to
climate change are pollutants, whose
emissions can now be subject to the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.;
see 74 FR 66496). However, specific
regulations to limit greenhouse gas
emissions were only proposed in 2010.
At present, we have no basis to
conclude that implementation of the
Clean Air Act in the foreseeable future
(40 years, based on global climate
projections) will substantially reduce
the current rate of global climate change
through regulation of greenhouse gas
emissions. Thus, we conclude that the
Clean Air Act does not adequately
address the primary threat to the
meltwater lednian stonefly, namely the
anticipated loss of thermally and
hydrologically suitable habitat as a
result of the melting of glaciers and
other environmental changes that result
from climate change in Glacier NP.
Summary of Factor D
The existing regulatory mechanisms,
especially the NPS Organic Act, appear
to adequately protect the pristine nature
of Glacier NP and presumably the highalpine streams inhabited by the
meltwater lednian stonefly. Thus, at a
local or regional level we have no
evidence that such regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to protect
the species now or in the foreseeable
future, and we expect that meltwater
lednian stonefly habitat in Glacier NP
will be generally protected from direct
human disturbance. However, we
consider habitat loss and modification
resulting from the environmental
changes due to climate change to
constitute the primary threat to the
species. The United States is only now
beginning to address global climate
change through the regulatory process
(e.g., Clean Air Act). We have no
information on what regulations may
eventually be adopted, and when
implemented, if they would address the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:08 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
changes in meltwater lednian stonefly
habitat that are likely to occur in the
foreseeable future. Consequently, we
conclude that existing regulatory
mechanisms are not adequate to address
the threat of habitat loss and
modification resulting from the
environmental changes due to climate
change to the meltwater lednian
stonefly in the foreseeable future.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting The Species’
Continued Existence
Restricted Range and Stochastic
(Random) Events
The meltwater lednian stonefly is
currently considered to be a narrow
endemic found only within Glacier NP.
At present, the species’ restricted range
makes the species vulnerable to
extirpation by localized disturbances or
environmental conditions, such as fire,
flood, and drought. We have no
information on the specific effects of
any of these disturbances on the
meltwater lednian stonefly, nor any
information on the ability of the species
to recover from disturbance or disperse
to new habitats. However, in general,
organisms of alpine stream segments
may be isolated by specific thermal or
habitat criteria that make transfer from
one stream to another difficult despite
the physical connections that exist in
dendritic stream networks (e.g., Hauer et
al. 2007, pp. 108–110). We presume that
the species’ restricted range does not
constitute a threat in itself for the
meltwater lednian stonefly, especially
as it occupies habitats that are generally
considered pristine and that should be
comparatively resistant and resilient to
disturbance compared to more
intensively managed landscapes. We do
not consider the species’ restricted
range to be a threat at the present time,
but we do anticipate that the species’
restricted range may interact with the
anticipated environmental changes
resulting from the effects of climate
change to increase the risk of
extirpation, and therefore to become a
threat in the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor E
The restricted range of the meltwater
lednian stonefly does not necessarily
constitute a threat in itself. However,
the restricted range in concert with the
threat of habitat loss and modification
resulting from the environmental
changes due to climate change is
expected to increase the vulnerability of
the species, and thus we anticipate this
will become a threat in the foreseeable
future. We are not aware of any
additional natural or manmade factors
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
affecting the species’ continued
existence that present a current or
potential threat in the foreseeable future
to the meltwater lednian stonefly, but
we do consider the interaction of the
species’ restricted range with the threat
of habitat loss in the foreseeable future
to be a threat to the species under this
factor.
Finding for the Meltwater Lednian
Stonefly
As required by the Act, we considered
the five factors in assessing whether the
meltwater lednian stonefly is
endangered or threatened throughout all
or a significant portion of its range. We
carefully examined the best scientific
and commercial information available
regarding the past, present, and future
threats faced by the species. We
reviewed the petition, information
available in our files, other available
published and unpublished
information, and we consulted with
recognized experts and other Federal
and State agencies.
The meltwater lednian stonefly is a
narrowly distributed endemic presently
known to occur in a small number of
cold, snowmelt- or glacier-fed, highalpine streams in Glacier NP, Montana.
Our status review identified threats to
the species related to Factors A, D, and
E. In particular, under Factor A, the
melting of glaciers in Glacier NP is
considered a threat to the species, now
and in the foreseeable future, because
loss of glaciers is expected to alter the
thermal and hydrologic regimes of highalpine streams occupied by the species.
Higher water temperatures, seasonal or
permanent stream dewatering, and
changes in the timing and volume of
snowmelt may change the existing
habitat such that it no longer satisfies
the ecological and physiological
requirements of the species. While
existing regulatory mechanisms provide
adequate protection for the meltwater
lednian stonefly and its habitat from
direct destruction or modification
resulting from most human activities,
the existing regulatory mechanisms do
not address the primary threat to the
species, which is habitat loss and
modification resulting from
environmental changes caused by global
climate change. Thus, under Factor D,
we conclude the existing regulatory
mechanisms do not adequately address
the threat of habitat loss and
modification in the foreseeable future.
In addition, under Factor E we conclude
that the restricted range of the species,
while not a threat by itself, is expected
to interact with the threat of habitat loss
and modification to increase the
E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM
05APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
vulnerability of the species in the
forseeable future.
On the basis of the best scientific and
commercial information available, we
find that listing of the meltwater lednian
stonefly as endangered or threatened is
warranted. We will make a
determination on the status of the
species as endangered or threatened
when we prepare a proposed listing
determination. However, as explained
in more detail below (see Preclusion
and Expeditious Progress section), an
immediate proposal of a regulation
implementing this action is precluded
by higher priority listing actions, and
progress is being made to add or remove
qualified species from the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants.
We have reviewed the available
information to determine if the existing
and foreseeable threats render the
species at risk of extinction now, such
that issuing an emergency regulation
temporarily listing the species, under
section 4(b)(7) of the Act, is warranted.
We determined that issuing an
emergency regulation temporarily
listing the species is not warranted at
this time, because the species is not
under immediate threat of extinction.
Glaciers still exist in Glacier NP and are
expected to be present through the next
decade. However, if at any time we
determine that issuing an emergency
regulation temporarily listing the
meltwater lednian stonefly is warranted,
we will initiate the action at that time.
Listing Priority Number
The Service adopted guidelines on
September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098), to
establish a rational system for utilizing
available resources for the highest
priority species when adding species to
the Lists of Endangered or Threatened
Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying
species listed as threatened to
endangered status. These guidelines,
titled ‘‘Endangered and Threatened
Species Listing and Recovery Priority
Guidelines,’’ address the immediacy and
magnitude of threats, and the level of
taxonomic distinctiveness by assigning
priority in descending order to
monotypic genera (genus with one
species), full species, and subspecies (or
equivalently, distinct population
segments of vertebrates).
As a result of our analysis of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we assigned the meltwater
lednian stonefly a Listing Priority
Number (LPN) of 4 based on our finding
that the species faces threats that are of
high magnitude but are not imminent.
These primary threats include the
present or threatened destruction,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:08 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat resulting from climate change,
and the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms to address
threats from climate change.
Under the Service’s guidelines, the
magnitude of threat is the first criterion
we look at when establishing a listing
priority. The guidelines indicate that
species with the highest magnitude of
threat are those species facing the
greatest threats to their continued
existence. These species receive the
highest listing priority. We consider the
threats that the meltwater lednian
stonefly faces from melting glaciers and
other environmental changes that result
from climate change to be high in
magnitude because of the recent
observations of glacial ablation
(shrinking) in Glacier NP and the
projections that all glaciers in Glacier
NP may disappear in the next 20 years,
and because we expect all known
populations of the meltwater lednian
stonefly to be affected by these changes.
Under our LPN guidelines, the second
criterion we consider in assigning a
listing priority is the immediacy of
threats. This criterion is intended to
ensure that species facing actual,
identifiable threats are given priority
over those for which threats are only
potential or for those that are
intrinsically vulnerable but are not
known to be presently facing such
threats. The significant reduction in
glacier sizes in Glacier NP observed
during the past few decades and the
changes in hydrologic patterns and
water temperatures attributed to climate
change suggests that habitat loss and
modification may represent a current
threat to the species. Because of its
apparent dependence on glacial
meltwater for survival, the meltwater
lednian stonefly is intrinsically
vulnerable to threats from the
environmental changes resulting from
climate change. However, we do not
have sufficient empirical information on
the meltwater lednian stonefly to
evaluate whether there are any trends in
the occurrence or abundance of the
species, nor do we have any information
about the species’ response to such
changes. Thus, we cannot conclude that
the species is currently actually facing
the threat of habitat loss and
modification, which would be necessary
to make a finding that the threat of
environmental changes resulting from
climate change is imminent.
Environmental changes resulting from
climate change are reasonably certain to
occur, but we have no empirical
(documented) evidence that the
resulting threat to the species is
imminent (ongoing). The other
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18695
identified threats include inadequate
regulatory mechanisms for addressing
the environmental changes resulting
from climate change, and the interaction
of the species’ restricted range with the
threat of habitat loss resulting from
climate change. These threats act in
concert with climate change, and so
they also are not imminent. We expect
the threat of climate change to intensify
in the foreseeable future based on
projections of air temperature increases
from current global climate models and
the predicted melting of all glaciers in
Glacier NP by the year 2030. Therefore,
based on our LPN guidelines, the threats
are not imminent (ongoing).
The third criterion in our LPN
guidelines is intended to devote
resources to those species representing
highly distinctive or isolated gene pools
as reflected by taxonomy. The meltwater
lednian stonefly (Lednia tumana) is a
valid taxon at the species level and is
currently recognized as a monotypic
genus; thus it receives a higher priority
than a species or subspecies.
Therefore, we have assigned the
meltwater lednian stonefly an LPN of 4
based on our determination that the
threats are high in magnitude but not
imminent, and because the species is
recognized as a monotypic genus.
We will continue to monitor the
threats to the meltwater lednian stonefly
and the species’ status on an annual
basis, and should the taxonomic status
or the magnitude or imminence of the
threats change, we will revisit our
assessment of its LPN.
Because we have assigned the
meltwater lednian stonefly a LPN of 4,
work on a proposed listing
determination for the meltwater lednian
stonefly is precluded by work on higher
priority listing actions with absolute
statutory, court-ordered, or courtapproved deadlines and on final listing
determinations for those species that
were proposed for listing with funds
from FY 2010. This work includes all
the actions listed in the tables below
under Preclusion and Expeditious
Progress.
Preclusion and Expeditious Progress
Preclusion is a function of the listing
priority of a species in relation to the
resources that are available and the cost
and relative priority of competing
demands for those resources. Thus, in
any given fiscal year (FY), multiple
factors dictate whether it will be
possible to undertake work on a listing
proposal regulation or whether
promulgation of such a proposal is
precluded by higher-priority listing
actions.
E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM
05APP1
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
18696
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
The resources available for listing
actions are determined through the
annual Congressional appropriations
process. The appropriation for the
Listing Program is available to support
work involving the following listing
actions: Proposed and final listing rules;
90-day and 12-month findings on
petitions to add species to the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants (Lists) or to change the status
of a species from threatened to
endangered; annual ‘‘resubmitted’’
petition findings on prior warrantedbut-precluded petition findings as
required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of
the Act; critical habitat petition
findings; proposed and final rules
designating critical habitat; and
litigation-related, administrative, and
program-management functions
(including preparing and allocating
budgets, responding to Congressional
and public inquiries, and conducting
public outreach regarding listing and
critical habitat). The work involved in
preparing various listing documents can
be extensive and may include, but is not
limited to: Gathering and assessing the
best scientific and commercial data
available and conducting analyses used
as the basis for our decisions; writing
and publishing documents; and
obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating
public comments and peer review
comments on proposed rules and
incorporating relevant information into
final rules. The number of listing
actions that we can undertake in a given
year also is influenced by the
complexity of those listing actions; that
is, more complex actions generally are
more costly. The median cost for
preparing and publishing a 90-day
finding is $39,276; for a 12-month
finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule
with critical habitat, $345,000; and for
a final listing rule with critical habitat,
$305,000.
We cannot spend more than is
appropriated for the Listing Program
without violating the Anti-Deficiency
Act (see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In
addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal
year since then, Congress has placed a
statutory cap on funds that may be
expended for the Listing Program, equal
to the amount expressly appropriated
for that purpose in that fiscal year. This
cap was designed to prevent funds
appropriated for other functions under
the Act (for example, recovery funds for
removing species from the Lists), or for
other Service programs, from being used
for Listing Program actions (see House
Report 105–163, 105th Congress, 1st
Session, July 1, 1997).
Since FY 2002, the Service’s budget
has included a critical habitat subcap to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:08 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
ensure that some funds are available for
other work in the Listing Program (‘‘The
critical habitat designation subcap will
ensure that some funding is available to
address other listing activities’’ (House
Report No. 107–103, 107th Congress, 1st
Session, June 19, 2001)). In FY 2002 and
each year until FY 2006, the Service has
had to use virtually the entire critical
habitat subcap to address courtmandated designations of critical
habitat, and consequently none of the
critical habitat subcap funds have been
available for other listing activities. In
some FYs since 2006, we have been able
to use some of the critical habitat
subcap funds to fund proposed listing
determinations for high-priority
candidate species. In other FYs, while
we were unable to use any of the critical
habitat subcap funds to fund proposed
listing determinations, we did use some
of this money to fund the critical habitat
portion of some proposed listing
determinations so that the proposed
listing determination and proposed
critical habitat designation could be
combined into one rule, thereby being
more efficient in our work. At this time,
for FY 2011, we do not know if we will
be able to use some of the critical
habitat subcap funds to fund proposed
listing determinations.
We make our determinations of
preclusion on a nationwide basis to
ensure that the species most in need of
listing will be addressed first and also
because we allocate our listing budget
on a nationwide basis. Through the
listing cap, the critical habitat subcap,
and the amount of funds needed to
address court-mandated critical habitat
designations, Congress and the courts
have in effect determined the amount of
money available for other listing
activities nationwide. Therefore, the
funds in the listing cap, other than those
needed to address court-mandated
critical habitat for already listed species,
set the limits on our determinations of
preclusion and expeditious progress.
Congress identified the availability of
resources as the only basis for deferring
the initiation of a rulemaking that is
warranted. The Conference Report
accompanying Public Law 97–304
(Endangered Species Act Amendments
of 1982), which established the current
statutory deadlines and the warrantedbut-precluded finding, states that the
amendments were ‘‘not intended to
allow the Secretary to delay
commencing the rulemaking process for
any reason other than that the existence
of pending or imminent proposals to list
species subject to a greater degree of
threat would make allocation of
resources to such a petition [that is, for
a lower-ranking species] unwise.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Although that statement appeared to
refer specifically to the ‘‘to the
maximum extent practicable’’ limitation
on the 90-day deadline for making a
‘‘substantial information’’ finding, that
finding is made at the point when the
Service is deciding whether or not to
commence a status review that will
determine the degree of threats facing
the species, and therefore the analysis
underlying the statement is more
relevant to the use of the warranted-butprecluded finding, which is made when
the Service has already determined the
degree of threats facing the species and
is deciding whether or not to commence
a rulemaking.
In FY 2011, on March 18, 2011,
Congress passed a continuing resolution
which provides funding at the FY 2010
enacted level through April 8, 2011.
Until Congress appropriates funds for
FY 2011 at a different level, we will
fund listing work based on the FY 2010
amount. Thus, at this time in FY 2011,
the Service anticipates an appropriation
of $22,103,000 for the listing program
based on FY 2010 appropriations. Of
that, the Service anticipates needing to
dedicate $11,632,000 for determinations
of critical habitat for already listed
species. Also $500,000 is appropriated
for foreign species listings under the
Act. The Service thus has $9,971,000
available to fund work in the following
categories: compliance with court orders
and court-approved settlement
agreements requiring that petition
findings or listing determinations be
completed by a specific date; section 4
(of the Act) listing actions with absolute
statutory deadlines; essential litigationrelated, administrative, and listing
program-management functions; and
high-priority listing actions for some of
our candidate species. In FY 2010, the
Service received many new petitions
and a single petition to list 404 species.
The receipt of petitions for a large
number of species is consuming the
Service’s listing funding that is not
dedicated to meeting court-ordered
commitments. Absent some ability to
balance effort among listing duties
under existing funding levels, it is
unlikely that the Service will be able to
initiate any new listing determination
for candidate species in FY 2011.
In 2009, the responsibility for listing
foreign species under the Act was
transferred from the Division of
Scientific Authority, International
Affairs Program, to the Endangered
Species Program. Therefore, starting in
FY 2010, we used a portion of our
funding to work on the actions
described above for listing actions
related to foreign species. In FY 2011,
we anticipate using $1,500,000 for work
E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM
05APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
on listing actions for foreign species
which reduces funding available for
domestic listing actions; however,
currently only $500,000 has been
allocated for this function. Although
there are no foreign species issues
included in our high-priority listing
actions at this time, many actions have
statutory or court-approved settlement
deadlines, thus increasing their priority.
The budget allocations for each specific
listing action are identified in the
Service’s FY 2011 Allocation Table (part
of our record).
For the above reasons, funding a
proposed listing determination for the
meltwater lednian stonefly, which has
an LPN of 4, is precluded by courtordered and court-approved settlement
agreements, listing actions with absolute
statutory deadlines, work on final listing
determinations for those species that
were proposed for listing with funds
from FY 2011, and work on proposed
listing determinations for those
candidate species with a higher listing
priority (i.e., candidate species with
LPNs of 1 to 3).
Based on our September 21, 1983,
guidelines for assigning an LPN for each
candidate species (48 FR 43098), we
have a significant number of species
with high priority LPNs. Using these
guidelines, we assign each candidate an
LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the
magnitude of threats (high or moderate
to low), immediacy of threats (imminent
or nonimminent), and taxonomic status
of the species (in order of priority:
Monotypic genus (a species that is the
sole member of a genus); species; or part
of a species (subspecies, distinct
population segment, or significant
portion of the range)). The lower the
listing priority number, the higher the
listing priority (that is, a species with an
LPN of 1 would have the highest listing
priority).
Because of the large number of highpriority species, we have further ranked
the candidate species with an LPN of 2
by using the following extinction-risk
type criteria: International Union for the
Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank,
Heritage rank (provided by
NatureServe), Heritage threat rank
(provided by NatureServe), and species
currently with fewer than 50
individuals, or 4 or fewer populations.
Those species with the highest IUCN
rank (critically endangered), the highest
Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage
threat rank (substantial, imminent
threats), and currently with fewer than
50 individuals, or fewer than 4
populations, originally comprised a
group of approximately 40 candidate
species (‘‘Top 40’’). These 40 candidate
species have had the highest priority to
receive funding to work on a proposed
listing determination. As we work on
proposed and final listing rules for those
40 candidates, we apply the ranking
criteria to the next group of candidates
with an LPN of 2 and 3 to determine the
next set of highest priority candidate
species. Finally, proposed rules for
reclassification of threatened species to
endangered are lower priority, because
as listed species, they are already
afforded the protection of the Act and
implementing regulations. However, for
efficiency reasons, we may choose to
work on a proposed rule to reclassify a
species to endangered if we can
combine this with work that is subject
to a court-determined deadline.
With our workload so much bigger
than the amount of funds we have to
18697
accomplish it, it is important that we be
as efficient as possible in our listing
process. Therefore, as we work on
proposed rules for the highest priority
species in the next several years, we are
preparing multi-species proposals when
appropriate, and these may include
species with lower priority if they
overlap geographically or have the same
threats as a species with an LPN of 2.
In addition, we take into consideration
the availability of staff resources when
we determine which high-priority
species will receive funding to
minimize the amount of time and
resources required to complete each
listing action.
As explained above, a determination
that listing is warranted but precluded
must also demonstrate that expeditious
progress is being made to add and
remove qualified species to and from
the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. As with our
‘‘precluded’’ finding, the evaluation of
whether progress in adding qualified
species to the Lists has been expeditious
is a function of the resources available
for listing and the competing demands
for those funds. (Although we do not
discuss it in detail here, we are also
making expeditious progress in
removing species from the list under the
Recovery program in light of the
resource available for delisting, which is
funded by a separate line item in the
budget of the Endangered Species
Program. So far during FY 2011, we
have completed one delisting rule.)
Given the limited resources available for
listing, we find that we are making
expeditious progress in FY 2011 in the
Listing Program. This progress included
preparing and publishing the following
determinations:
FY 2011 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS
Publication date
Title
Actions
FR pages
10/6/2010 .................
Endangered Status for the Altamaha Spinymussel and Designation of Critical Habitat.
12-month Finding on a Petition to list the Sacramento Splittail
as Endangered or Threatened.
Endangered Status and Designation of Critical Habitat for
Spikedace and Loach Minnow.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Bay Springs Salamander as Endangered.
Determination of Endangered Status for the Georgia Pigtoe
Mussel, Interrupted Rocksnail, and Rough Hornsnail and
Designation of Critical Habitat.
Listing the Rayed Bean and Snuffbox as Endangered ...............
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Cirsium wrightii (Wright’s
Marsh Thistle) as Endangered or Threatened.
Proposed Listing Endangered ..
75 FR 61664–61690
Notice of 12-month petition
finding, Not warranted.
Proposed Listing Endangered
(uplisting).
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial.
Final Listing Endangered ..........
75 FR 62070–62095
10/7/2010 .................
10/28/2010 ...............
11/2/2010 .................
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
11/2/2010 .................
11/2/2010 .................
11/4/2010 .................
12/14/2010 ...............
12/14/2010 ...............
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Endangered Status for Dunes Sagebrush Lizard .......................
12-month Finding on a Petition to List the North American Wolverine as Endangered or Threatened.
13:08 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Proposed Listing Endangered ..
Notice of 12-month petition
finding, Warranted but precluded.
Proposed Listing Endangered ..
Notice of 12-month petition
finding, Warranted but precluded.
E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM
05APP1
75 FR 66481–66552
75 FR 67341–67343
75 FR 67511–67550
75 FR 67551–67583
75 FR 67925–67944
75 FR77801–77817
75 FR 78029–78061
18698
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
FY 2011 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued
Publication date
Title
Actions
FR pages
12/14/2010 ...............
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Sonoran Population
of the Desert Tortoise as Endangered or Threatened.
75 FR 78093–78146
12/15/2010 ...............
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Astragalus microcymbus
and Astragalus schmolliae as Endangered or Threatened.
12/28/2010 ...............
Listing Seven Brazilian Bird Species as Endangered Throughout Their Range.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Red Knot subspecies
Calidris canutus roselaari as Endangered.
Endangered Status for the Sheepnose and Spectaclecase
Mussels.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Pacific Walrus as
Endangered or Threatened.
Notice of 12-month petition
finding, Warranted but precluded.
Notice of 12-month petition
finding, Warranted but precluded.
Final Listing Endangered ..........
1/4/2011 ...................
1/19/2011 .................
2/10/2011 .................
2/17/2011 .................
2/22/2011 .................
2/22/2011 .................
2/23/2011 .................
2/23/2011 .................
2/24/2011 .................
2/24/2011 .................
3/8/2011 ...................
3/8/2011 ...................
3/10/2011 .................
3/15/2011 .................
3/22/2011 .................
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Sand Verbena Moth
as Endangered or Threatened.
Determination of Threatened Status for the New Zealand-Australia Distinct Population Segment of the Southern
Rockhopper Penguin.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Solanum conocarpum
(marron bacora) as Endangered.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Thorne’s Hairstreak Butterfly as Endangered.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Astragalus hamiltonii,
Penstemon flowersii, Eriogonum soredium, Lepidium ostleri,
and Trifolium friscanum as Endangered or Threatened.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Wild Plains Bison or
Each of Four Distinct Population Segments as Threatened.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Unsilvered Fritillary
Butterfly as Threatened or Endangered.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Mt. Charleston Blue
Butterfly as Endangered or Threatened.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Texas Kangaroo Rat
as Endangered or Threatened.
Initiation of Status Review for Longfin Smelt ..............................
Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List the Flat-tailed Horned Lizard as Threatened.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Berry Cave Salamander as Endangered.
Our expeditious progress also
includes work on listing actions that we
funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 but
have not yet been completed to date.
These actions are listed below. Actions
in the top section of the table are being
conducted under a deadline set by a
court. Actions in the middle section of
the table are being conducted to meet
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial.
Proposed Listing Endangered ..
Notice of 12-month petition
finding, Warranted but precluded.
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial.
Final Listing Threatened ...........
Notice of 12-month petition
finding, Warranted but precluded.
Notice of 12-month petition
finding, Not warranted.
Notice of 12-month petition
finding, Warranted but precluded & Not Warraned.
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial.
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial.
Notice of 12-month petition
finding, Warranted but precluded.
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial.
Notice of Status Review ...........
Proposed rule withdrawal .........
Notice of 12-month petition
finding, Warranted but precluded.
statutory timelines, that is, timelines
required under the Act. Actions in the
bottom section of the table are highpriority listing actions. These actions
include work primarily on species with
an LPN of 2, and, as discussed above,
selection of these species is partially
based on available staff resources, and
when appropriate, include species with
75 FR 78513–78556
75 FR 81793–81815
76 FR 304–311
76 FR 3392–3420
76 FR 7634–7679
76 FR 9309–9318
76 FR 9681–9692
76 FR 9722–9733
76 FR 991–10003
76 FR 10166–10203
76 FR 10299–10310
76 FR 10310–10319
76 FR 12667–12683
76 FR 12683–12690
76 FR 13121–31322
76 FR 14210–14268
76 FR 15919–15932
a lower priority if they overlap
geographically or have the same threats
as the species with the high priority.
Including these species together in the
same proposed rule results in
considerable savings in time and
funding, when compared to preparing
separate proposed rules for each of them
in the future.
ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 AND FY 2011 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Species
Action
Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
Mountain plover 4 ...........................................................................................................................................................
Hermes copper butterfly 3 ...............................................................................................................................................
4 parrot species (military macaw, yellow-billed parrot, red-crowned parrot, scarlet macaw) 5 ......................................
4 parrot species (blue-headed macaw, great green macaw, grey-cheeked parakeet, hyacinth macaw) 5 ...................
4 parrots species (crimson shining parrot, white cockatoo, Philippine cockatoo, yellow-crested cockatoo) 5 ..............
Utah prairie dog (uplisting) .............................................................................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:08 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM
05APP1
Final listing determination.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
18699
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 AND FY 2011 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued
Species
Action
Actions With Statutory Deadlines
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Casey’s june beetle ........................................................................................................................................................
6 Birds from Eurasia .......................................................................................................................................................
5 Bird species from Colombia and Ecuador ..................................................................................................................
Queen Charlotte goshawk ..............................................................................................................................................
5 species southeast fish (Cumberland darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, and laurel dace) 4 ..
Ozark hellbender 4 ..........................................................................................................................................................
Altamaha spinymussel 3 ..................................................................................................................................................
3 Colorado plants (Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket), Penstemon debilis (Parachute Beardtongue), and
Phacelia submutica (DeBeque Phacelia)) 4.
Salmon crested cockatoo ...............................................................................................................................................
6 Birds from Peru & Bolivia ............................................................................................................................................
Loggerhead sea turtle (assist National Marine Fisheries Service) 5 ..............................................................................
2 mussels (rayed bean (LPN = 2), snuffbox No LPN) 5 .................................................................................................
CA golden trout 4 ............................................................................................................................................................
Black-footed albatross ....................................................................................................................................................
Mojave fringe-toed lizard 1 ..............................................................................................................................................
Kokanee—Lake Sammamish population 1 .....................................................................................................................
Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl 1 .....................................................................................................................................
Northern leopard frog .....................................................................................................................................................
Tehachapi slender salamander ......................................................................................................................................
Coqui Llanero .................................................................................................................................................................
Dusky tree vole ...............................................................................................................................................................
3 MT invertebrates (meltwater lednian stonefly (Lednia tumana), Oreohelix sp. 3, Oreohelix sp. 31) from 206 species petition.
5 WY plants (Abronia ammophila, Agrostis rossiae, Astragalus proimanthus, Boechere (Arabis) pusilla, Penstemon
gibbensii) from 206 species petition.
Leatherside chub (from 206 species petition) ................................................................................................................
Frigid ambersnail (from 206 species petition) 3 ..............................................................................................................
Platte River caddisfly (from 206 species petition) 5 ........................................................................................................
Gopher tortoise—eastern population ..............................................................................................................................
Grand Canyon scorpion (from 475 species petition) .....................................................................................................
Anacroneuria wipukupa (a stonefly from 475 species petition) 4 ...................................................................................
3 Texas moths (Ursia furtiva, Sphingicampa blanchardi, Agapema galbina) (from 475 species petition) ....................
2 Texas shiners (Cyprinella sp., Cyprinella lepida) (from 475 species petition) ...........................................................
3 South Arizona plants (Erigeron piscaticus, Astragalus hypoxylus, Amoreuxia gonzalezii) (from 475 species petition).
5 Central Texas mussel species (3 from 475 species petition) .....................................................................................
14 parrots (foreign species) ............................................................................................................................................
Striped Newt 1 .................................................................................................................................................................
Fisher—Northern Rocky Mountain Range 1 ...................................................................................................................
Mohave Ground Squirrel 1 ..............................................................................................................................................
Puerto Rico Harlequin Butterfly 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Western gull-billed tern ...................................................................................................................................................
Ozark chinquapin (Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis) 4 .................................................................................................
HI yellow-faced bees ......................................................................................................................................................
Giant Palouse earthworm ...............................................................................................................................................
Whitebark pine ................................................................................................................................................................
OK grass pink (Calopogon oklahomensis) 1 ...................................................................................................................
Ashy storm-petrel 5 .........................................................................................................................................................
Honduran emerald ..........................................................................................................................................................
Southeastern pop snowy plover & wintering pop. of piping plover 1 .............................................................................
Eagle Lake trout 1 ...........................................................................................................................................................
Smooth-billed ani 1 ..........................................................................................................................................................
32 Pacific Northwest mollusks species (snails and slugs) 1 ..........................................................................................
42 snail species (Nevada & Utah) ..................................................................................................................................
Peary caribou ..................................................................................................................................................................
Spring Mountains checkerspot butterfly .........................................................................................................................
Spring pygmy sunfish .....................................................................................................................................................
Bay skipper .....................................................................................................................................................................
Spot-tailed earless lizard ................................................................................................................................................
Eastern small-footed bat .................................................................................................................................................
Northern long-eared bat .................................................................................................................................................
Prairie chub .....................................................................................................................................................................
10 species of Great Basin butterfly ................................................................................................................................
6 sand dune (scarab) beetles .........................................................................................................................................
Golden-winged warbler 4 .................................................................................................................................................
404 Southeast species ...................................................................................................................................................
Franklin’s bumble bee 4 ..................................................................................................................................................
2 Idaho snowflies (straight snowfly & Idaho snowfly) 4 ..................................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:08 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM
05APP1
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
listing
listing
listing
listing
listing
listing
listing
listing
determination.
determination.
determination.
determination.
determination.
determination.
determination.
determination.
Final listing determination.
Final listing determination.
Final listing determination.
Final listing determination.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding/
Proposed listing.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month
12-month
12-month
12-month
12-month
12-month
12-month
12-month
12-month
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
18700
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 AND FY 2011 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued
Species
Action
American eel 4 .................................................................................................................................................................
Gila monster (Utah population) 4 ....................................................................................................................................
Arapahoe snowfly 4 .........................................................................................................................................................
Leona’s little blue 4 ..........................................................................................................................................................
Aztec gilia 5 .....................................................................................................................................................................
White-tailed ptarmigan 5 ..................................................................................................................................................
San Bernardino flying squirrel 5 ......................................................................................................................................
Bicknell’s thrush 5 ............................................................................................................................................................
Chimpanzee ....................................................................................................................................................................
Sonoran talussnail 5 ........................................................................................................................................................
2 AZ Sky Island plants (Graptopetalum bartrami & Pectis imberbis) 5 ..........................................................................
I’iwi 5 ................................................................................................................................................................................
90-day
90-day
90-day
90-day
90-day
90-day
90-day
90-day
90-day
90-day
90-day
90-day
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
High-Priority Listing Actions
species 2
19 Oahu candidate
(16 plants, 3 damselflies) (15 with LPN = 2, 3 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN = 9) .............
19 Maui-Nui candidate species 2 (16 plants, 3 tree snails) (14 with LPN = 2, 2 with LPN = 3, 3 with LPN = 8) .........
2 Arizona springsnails 2 (Pyrgulopsis bernadina (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis trivialis (LPN = 2)) ........................................
Chupadera springsnail 2 (Pyrgulopsis chupaderae (LPN = 2) .......................................................................................
8 Gulf Coast mussels (southern kidneyshell (LPN = 2), round ebonyshell (LPN = 2), Alabama pearlshell (LPN = 2),
southern sandshell (LPN = 5), fuzzy pigtoe (LPN = 5), Choctaw bean (LPN = 5), narrow pigtoe (LPN = 5), and
tapered pigtoe (LPN = 11)) 4.
Umtanum buckwheat (LPN = 2) and white bluffs bladderpod (LPN = 9) 4 ....................................................................
Grotto sculpin (LPN = 2) 4 ..............................................................................................................................................
2 Arkansas mussels (Neosho mucket (LPN = 2) & Rabbitsfoot (LPN = 9)) 4 ...............................................................
Diamond darter (LPN = 2) 4 ............................................................................................................................................
Gunnison sage-grouse (LPN = 2) 4 ................................................................................................................................
Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Beetle (LPN = 2) 5 ..........................................................................................................
Miami blue (LPN = 3) 3 ...................................................................................................................................................
Lesser prairie chicken (LPN = 2) ...................................................................................................................................
4 Texas salamanders (Austin blind salamander (LPN = 2), Salado salamander (LPN = 2), Georgetown salamander
(LPN = 8), Jollyville Plateau (LPN = 8)) 3.
5 SW aquatics (Gonzales Spring Snail (LPN = 2), Diamond Y springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom springsnail (LPN =
2), Phantom Cave snail (LPN = 2), Diminutive amphipod (LPN = 2)) 3.
2 Texas plants (Texas golden gladecress (Leavenworthia texana) (LPN = 2), Neches River rose-mallow (Hibiscus
dasycalyx) (LPN = 2)) 3.
4 AZ plants (Acuna cactus (Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis) (LPN = 3), Fickeisen plains cactus
(Pediocactus peeblesianus fickeiseniae) (LPN = 3), Lemmon fleabane (Erigeron lemmonii) (LPN = 8), Gierisch
mallow (Sphaeralcea gierischii) (LPN = 2)) 5.
FL bonneted bat (LPN = 2) 3 ..........................................................................................................................................
3 Southern FL plants (Florida semaphore cactus (Consolea corallicola) (LPN = 2), shellmound applecactus
(Harrisia (= Cereus) aboriginum (= gracilis)) (LPN = 2), Cape Sable thoroughwort (Chromolaena frustrata) (LPN
= 2)) 5.
21 Big Island (HI) species 5 (includes 8 candidate species—5 plants & 3 animals; 4 with LPN = 2, 1 with LPN = 3,
1 with LPN = 4, 2 with LPN = 8).
12 Puget Sound prairie species (9 subspecies of pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama ssp.) (LPN = 3), streaked
horned lark (LPN = 3), Taylor’s checkerspot (LPN = 3), Mardon skipper (LPN = 8)) 3.
2 TN River mussels (fluted kidneyshell (LPN = 2), slabside pearlymussel (LPN = 2) 5 ................................................
Jemez Mountain salamander (LPN = 2) 5 ......................................................................................................................
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
listing.
listing.
listing.
listing.
listing.
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
listing.
listing.
listing.
listing.
listing.
listing.
listing.
listing.
listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
1 Funds
for listing actions for these species were provided in previous FYs.
funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided in FY 2008 or 2009, due to the complexity of these actions and competing
priorities, these actions are still being developed.
3 Partially funded with FY 2010 funds and FY 2011 funds.
4 Funded with FY 2010 funds.
5 Funded with FY 2011 funds.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
2 Although
We have endeavored to make our
listing actions as efficient and timely as
possible, given the requirements of the
relevant law and regulations, and
constraints relating to workload and
personnel. We are continually
considering ways to streamline
processes or achieve economies of scale,
such as by batching related actions
together. Given our limited budget for
implementing section 4 of the Act, these
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:08 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
actions described above collectively
constitute expeditious progress.
The meltwater lednian stonefly will
be added to the list of candidate species
upon publication of this 12-month
finding. We will continue to monitor the
status of this species as new information
becomes available. This review will
determine if a change in status is
warranted, including the need to make
prompt use of emergency listing
procedures.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
We intend that any proposed listing
action for the meltwater lednian
stonefly will be as accurate as possible.
Therefore, we will continue to accept
additional information and comments
from all concerned governmental
agencies, the scientific community,
industry, or any other interested party
concerning this finding.
E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM
05APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
finding on the petition, which will
address whether the petitioned action is
A complete list of references cited is
warranted, as provided in section
available on the Internet at https://
4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
www.regulations.gov and upon request
DATES: To allow us adequate time to
from the Montana Field Office (see
conduct this review, we request that we
ADDRESSES section).
receive information on or before June 6,
Authors
2011. After this date, you must submit
The primary authors of this notice are information directly to the office listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
the staff members of the Montana Field
CONTACT section below. Please note that
Office.
we may not be able to address or
Authority
incorporate information that we receive
The authority for this section is
after the above requested date.
section 4 of the Endangered Species Act ADDRESSES: You may submit
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
information by one of the following
seq.).
methods:
Dated: March 21, 2011.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Search for docket
Gregory E. Siekaniec,
FWS–R9–ES–2010–0001 and then
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
follow the instructions for submitting
[FR Doc. 2011–7827 Filed 4–4–11; 8:45 am]
comments.
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R9–
ES–2010–0001; Division of Policy and
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and
Fish and Wildlife Service
Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
MS 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
50 CFR Part 17
We will post all information received
[FWS–R9–ES–2010–0001; MO 92210–0–0010 on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any
B6]
personal information you provide us
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
(see the Information Requested section
and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a
below for more details).
Petition To List the Peary Caribou and
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dolphin and Union Population of the
Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of
Barren-Ground Caribou as Endangered Foreign Species, Endangered Species
or Threatened
Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420,
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703–
Interior.
358–2171; facsimile 703–358–1735. If
ACTION: Notice of petition finding and
you use a telecommunications device
initiation of status review.
for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
800–877–8339.
Wildlife Service, announce a 90-day
finding on a petition to list the Peary
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
(Rangifer tarandus pearyi) and the
Information Requested
Dolphin and Union population of the
barren-ground (R. t. groenlandicus x
When we make a finding that a
pearyi) caribou as endangered or
petition presents substantial
threatened under the Endangered
information indicating that listing a
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
species or subspecies may be warranted,
Based on our review, we find that the
we are required to promptly review the
petition presents substantial scientific
status of the species (conduct a status
and commercial information indicating
review). For the status review to be
that the petitioned action may be
complete and based on the best
warranted. Therefore, with the
available scientific and commercial
publication of this notice, we are
information, we request information on
initiating a review of the status of these
these two subspecies from governmental
two subspecies to determine if listing
agencies (including Canadian national
these two subspecies is warranted. To
and provincial governments), local
ensure that this status review is
indigenous people of Canada (who also
comprehensive, we request scientific
may be acknowledged as Native
and commercial data and other
American or Aboriginal tribes), the
information regarding these two
scientific community, industry, and any
subspecies. At the conclusion of this
other interested parties. We seek
review, we will issue a 12-month
information on:
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
References Cited
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:08 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18701
(1) Each subspecies’ biology, range,
and population trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding,
breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range
including distribution patterns,
particularly regarding their seasonal
migrations;
(d) Historical and current population
levels, and current and projected
population trends;
(e) Potential threats to each
subspecies such as mining, resource
extraction, or other threats not
identified; and
(f) Past and ongoing conservation
measures for each subspecies or their
habitat.
(2) The factors that are the basis for
making a listing determination for a
species or subspecies under section 4(a)
of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
which are:
(a) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of their habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes, particularly data on hunting;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting their continued existence.
(3) The potential effects of climate
change on each subspecies and its
habitat.
Please include sufficient information
with your submission (such as full
references) to allow us to verify any
scientific or commercial information
you include. Submissions merely stating
support for or opposition to the action
under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted,
will not be considered in making a
determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the
Act directs that determinations as to
whether any species is an endangered or
threatened species must be made ‘‘solely
on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.’’
You may submit your information
concerning this status review by one of
the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section. If you submit information via
https://www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the Web site. If you submit a
hardcopy that includes personal
identifying information, you may
request at the top of your document that
we withhold this personal identifying
information from public review.
However, we cannot guarantee that we
will be able to do so. We will post all
E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM
05APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18684-18701]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7827]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2011-0016; MO 92210-0-0008-B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition To List the Bearmouth Mountainsnail, Byrne Resort
Mountainsnail, and Meltwater Lednian Stonefly as Endangered or
Threatened
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list the Bearmouth mountainsnail
(Oreohelix species 3), Byrne Resort mountainsnail (Oreohelix species
31), and meltwater lednian stonefly (Lednia tumana) as endangered or
threatened, and to designate critical habitat under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After review of all available
scientific and commercial information, we find that listing the
Bearmouth mountainsnail and the Byrne Resort mountainsnail is not
warranted because neither constitutes a valid taxon; therefore, they
are not considered to be listable entities under the Act. We find that
listing of the meltwater lednian stonefly is warranted. However,
currently listing of the meltwater lednian stonefly is precluded by
higher priority actions to amend the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication of this 12-month petition
finding, we will add the meltwater lednian stonefly to our candidate
species list. We will develop a proposed rule to list the meltwater
lednian stonefly as our priorities allow. We will make any
determination on critical habitat during development of the proposed
listing rule. During any interim period, we will address the status of
the candidate taxon through our annual Candidate Notice of Review
(CNOR).
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on April 5,
2011.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R6-ES-2011-0016. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Field Office, 585 Shepard Way,
Helena, MT
[[Page 18685]]
59601. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or
questions concerning this finding to the above street address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Wilson, Field Supervisor, Montana
Field Office (see ADDRESSES); by telephone at 406-449-5225; or by
facsimile at 406-449-5339. Persons who use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires
that, for any petition containing substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing the species may be warranted, we
make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition.
In this finding, we determine that the petitioned action is: (a) Not
warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but immediate proposal of a
regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other
pending proposals to determine whether species are endangered or
threatened, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove
qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we
treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be
warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such
finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12
months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal
Register.
Previous Federal Actions
Federal action for the Bearmouth mountainsnail, Byrne Resort
mountainsnail, and meltwater lednian stonefly began on July 30, 2007,
after we received a petition dated July 24, 2007, from Forest Guardians
(now WildEarth Guardians) requesting that the Service: (1) Consider all
full species in our mountain-prairie region ranked as G1 or G1G2 by the
organization NatureServe, except those that are currently listed,
proposed for listing, or candidates for listing; and (2) list each
species as either endangered or threatened (Forest Guardians 2007, pp.
1-37). The petition incorporated all analyses, references, and
documentation provided by NatureServe in its online database at https://www.natureserve.org/. We acknowledged the receipt of the petition in a
letter to the Forest Guardians, dated August 24, 2007 (Slack 2007, p.
1). In that letter we stated, based on preliminary review, we found no
compelling evidence to support an emergency listing for any of the
species covered by the petition, and that we planned work on the
petition in Fiscal Year (FY) 2008.
On March 19, 2008, WildEarth Guardians filed a complaint (1:08-CV-
472-CKK) indicating that the Service failed to comply with its
statutory duty to make 90-day findings on their two multiple species
petitions in two of the Service's administrative regions--one for the
mountain-prairie region, and one for the Southwest region (WildEarth
Guardians v. Kempthorne 2008, case 1:08-CV-472-CKK). We subsequently
published two initial 90-day findings on January 6, 2009 (74 FR 419),
and February 5, 2009 (74 FR 6122), identifying species for which we
were then making negative 90-day findings, and species for which we
were still working on a determination. The Bearmouth mountainsnail,
Byrne Resort mountainsnail, and meltwater lednian stonefly were not
addressed in either 90-day finding published in 2009, as we were still
conducting our analyses of these mountainsnails and the stonefly. On
March 13, 2009, the Service and WildEarth Guardians filed a stipulated
settlement in the U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, agreeing
that the Service would submit to the Federal Register a finding as to
whether WildEarth Guardians' petition presented substantial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for 38 mountain-
prairie region species by August 9, 2009 (WildEarth Guardians v.
Salazar 2009, case 1:08-CV-472-CKK).
On August 18, 2009, we published a 90-day finding for 38 mountain-
prairie region species (74 FR 41649). In that finding, we found that
the petition presented substantial information to indicate that listing
of Bearmouth mountainsnail and Byrne Resort mountainsnail may be
warranted due to the present or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of their habitat or range resulting from road
construction and associated activities. We also found that listing of
the meltwater lednian stonefly may be warranted based on threats from
climate change, and specifically the melting of glaciers associated
with the species' habitat. The finding also requested further
information pertaining to all three ``species'' (74 FR 41649). However,
the 90-day finding did not formally consider the taxonomic status of
the petitioned entities.
This notice constitutes the 12-month finding on the July 24, 2007,
petition to list the Bearmouth mountainsnail, Byrne Resort
mountainsnail, and meltwater lednian stonefly as endangered or
threatened.
Species Information for Bearmouth Mountainsnail and Byrne Resort
Mountainsnail
Species Descriptions
Bearmouth mountainsnail and Byrne Resort mountainsnail are ascribed
to the genus Oreohelix, commonly called the ``mountainsnail.'' This
genus of land snails is endemic to western North America and is found
in mountainous environments in the western United States from the
eastern Sierra Nevadas in the west to the Black Hills in the east, and
from southern Canada down to northern Mexico (Pilsbry 1916, pp. 341-
342; Pilsbry 1939, pp. 415-416; Weaver 2006, p. 9).
Biology and Life History
Most mountainsnail species are relatively large land snails (adult
body size greater than 5 centimeters (cm) (2 inches (in.)) that
typically prefer forested environments, calcium-rich areas, and
generally high available water content during generally dry conditions
in spring and summer months (Weaver 2006, p. 9). They survive colder
conditions at higher elevations by burrowing underground and
aestivating (Weaver 2006, p. 9). Individuals often also burrow during
hot summer months, appearing on the surface to feed during or after
rains (Frest and Johannes 1995, p. 22; Weaver 2006, p. 9). One
adaptation by Oreohelix to arid and semi-arid environments is the
practice of hatching eggs internally instead of the typical pattern of
laying them in favorable locations, as desiccation of eggs and
juveniles is a common cause of land snail death, especially in arid
areas (Frest and Johannes 1995, p. 18). Hatching the eggs internally
can reduce the probability of desiccation, and adults seem to be able
to delay release of juveniles if conditions warrant (Frest and Johannes
1995, p. 18).
Western land snails are typically herbivores, but some may consume
animal matter (Frest and Johannes 1995, p. 24). Land snails contribute
substantially to nutrient recycling, often breaking down plant detritus
and animal waste (Frest and Johannes 1995, pp. 24-25). They are preyed
upon extensively by small mammals (e.g., shrews and voles), reptiles,
amphibians, birds, and insects (Frest and Johannes 1995, p. 25).
The life history of western land snails is strongly controlled by
climate. Some species of Oreohelix are among the most long-lived land
snails, reaching sexual
[[Page 18686]]
maturity at about 2 to 3 years and living as long as 8 to 10 years
(Frest and Johannes 1995, p. 25). Mountainsnails have low adult
vagility (ability to move or disperse) (Chak 2007, p. 23) and
apparently lack a larval stage with high dispersal ability (Weaver
2006, pp. 8-9). Consequently, mountainsnails typically exist in small,
circumscribed colonies with dozens to a few thousand individuals (Frest
and Johannes 1995, pp. 22-23). Oreohelix snails are known to be
hermaphroditic (individuals have both male and female genitalia and can
assume either role in mating) (Pisbry 1939, p. 427; Hendricks 2003,
pp.17, 25) and viviparous (give birth to live young) (Pilsbry 1916, p.
343; Pilsbry 1939, p. 418).
Oreohelix species and subspecies vary in size, height of shell
spire, degree of carination (i.e., presence and size of a keel or ridge
around the outside whorl of the shell), width of umbilicus (i.e., the
ventral opening formed in the center of the whorls), and color (Pilsbry
1939, p. 415). Shell morphology is plastic (variable in response to
environmental conditions) in Oreohelix, and in snails in general and
can be affected by elevation, calcium content, humidity, and population
density (Chak 2007, p. 3). Substantial variation in shell morphology
within a particular Oreohelix colony is common (Pilsbry 1916, p. 340;
1939, p. 415). Conversely, shell characteristics can be similar in taxa
with different evolutionary histories but that occupy similar
environments (Chak 2007, p. 3). This variation within species and
colonies, combined with parallelism that can occur between unrelated
groups, has long been recognized as a challenge to correctly
identifying Oreohelix specimens and determining their distribution
(Pilsbry 1916, p. 340).
Distribution and Abundance
The distribution and abundance of Bearmouth mountainsnail and Byrne
Resort mountainsnail are not well known. In general, very little is
known about the distribution and status of terrestrial mollusks in
Montana (e.g., Hendricks 2003, pp. 3-4). The 2007 petition from
WildEarth Guardians and the NatureServe rankings for both Bearmouth
mountainsnail and Byrne Resort mountainsnail (e.g., NatureServe 2010a,
b) rely entirely on information contained in the unpublished report by
Frest and Johannes (1995, entire) that summarized occurrence and
conservation status of mollusks in the Interior Columbia Basin.
Frest and Johannes (1995, p. 5) stated that the original
distribution of Bearmouth mountainsnail is the ``Clark Fork River
valley in the area between Clinton and Garrison, Granite and Powell
counties, Montana,'' and they described the present distribution (in
1995) as ``a few very small colonies in the Bearmouth area.'' They did
not provide any spatial information about the actual location of these
colonies. They further speculated that Bearmouth mountainsnail may
occur in the adjacent lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service (Lolo
National Forest) and the State of Montana. Little information about the
Bearmouth mountainsnail has become available since the report by Frest
and Johannes (1995, p. 115). No occurrences of Bearmouth mountainsnail
were reported in more recent surveys of terrestrial mollusks conducted
by the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP) (Hendricks 2003, entire;
Hendricks et al. 2008, entire).
The only potential recent occurrences of Bearmouth mountainsnail
come from surveys conducted by Dr. Kathleen Weaver, an assistant
professor at the University of La Verne, California, who recently began
conducting research on the distribution, ecology, and genetics of
Oreohelix in Montana. Dr. Weaver reports collecting land snail
specimens from two colonies she believes may be Bearmouth
mountainsnails (Weaver 2010a, 2010b, pers. comm.). The first colony is
located in the Bearmouth area, and Dr. Weaver believes it is near the
type locality ``Bearmouth'' location along the Clark Fork River
described in Frest and Johannes (1995, p. 5; see above). The second
colony is located along Rock Creek, a left-bank tributary to the Clark
Fork River. The two colonies are believed to represent the same species
based on genetic similarity measured using mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA,
maternally-inherited DNA found in cellular organelles called
mitochondria) (Weaver 2010b, pers. comm.). Dr. Weaver refers to the two
colonies as ``Bearmouth mountainsnail'' based on the location of the
first colony (Weaver 2010b, pers. comm.). Both colonies are very small
(no more than 5 to 15 square meters or about 17 to 50 square feet), and
may contain from a few dozen to a few hundred individuals (Weaver
2010b, pers. comm.).
No information is available on the current abundance or
distribution of Byrne Resort mountainsnail, or whether the ``species''
even exists. The original distribution of the Byrne Resort
mountainsnail was described by Frest and Johannes (1995, p. 140) as
``the Clark Fork River valley near Bearmouth, Granite County, MT,'' and
they described the present distribution (in 1995) as ``a few very small
colonies in the old Byrne Resort area.'' As with the Bearmouth
mountainsnail, Frest and Johannes did not provide any accurate spatial
information about the actual location of these colonies. No occurrences
of Byrne Resort mountainsnail were reported in more recent surveys of
terrestrial mollusks conducted by the MNHP (Hendricks 2003, entire;
Hendricks et al. 2008, entire). More recently, neither the MNHP nor Dr.
Weaver (University of La Verne) have been able to locate a colony of
Oreohelix in the area that Frest and Johannes (1995, p. 14) reported
the Byrne Resort mountainsnail (Hendricks 2010, pers. comm.; Weaver
2010b, pers. comm.). It is not known whether the colonies no longer
exist, or if the original description of Byrne Resort mountainsnail is
incorrect.
Habitat
Factors determining habitat preferences of land snails include
cover, effective moisture availability, and geologic history (Frest and
Johannes 1995, p. 20). Most land snail species including those in the
genus Oreohelix are calciphiles, meaning they are usually restricted to
limestone, dolomite, or other substrates containing high levels of the
element calcium (Pilsbry 1916, p. 342; Frest and Johannes 1995, pp. 20-
21). Moist soil conditions are favored and soil pH may be a factor in
determining suitable habitat (Frest and Johannes 1995, pp. 20-24).
Oreohelix are generally associated with talus (a sloping mass of loose
rock debris at the base of a cliff) or rocky outcrops, and the occupied
sites may range from low-elevation canyons and valley bottoms to high-
elevation slopes well above the treeline (Hendricks 2003, pp. 4-5).
Taxonomy and Evaluation of the Listable Entities for Bearmouth
Mountainsnail and Byrne Resort Mountainsnail
The genus Oreohelix belongs to phylum Mollusca, class Gastropoda,
order Stylommatophora (terrestrial snails and slugs), and family
Oreohelicidae. The genus Oreohelix consists of 41 recognized species
(Turgeon et al. 1998, p. 143; Integrated Taxonomic Information System
(ITIS) 2010). Overall, the taxonomy of the genus is not well known
(Chak 2007, p. 21; Weaver 2006, p. 9), and additional species have been
proposed in the primary literature (e.g., Ports 2004, entire), in
graduate theses (e.g., Weaver 2006, pp. 49-95), and in grey literature
reports (e.g., Frest and Johannes 1995, pp. 113-140). The most extreme
example of purported additional
[[Page 18687]]
taxonomic diversity in Oreohelix is found in Frest and Johannes (1995,
pp. 113-139), who proposed that 31 additional species or subspecies
were found in the Interior Columbia Basin. The Bearmouth mountainsnail
(Oreohelix sp. 3) and the Byrne Resort Mountainsnail (Oreohelix sp. 31)
were among these 31 proposed species or subspecies (Frest and Johannes
1995, pp. 115, 139-140).
Taxonomic classification of Oreohelix snails has been based
traditionally on shell morphology (e.g., Pilsbry 1916, entire; Pilsbry
1939, pp. 413-553). Nonetheless, shell morphology has long been
considered an unreliable characteristic for delineating taxonomic units
within Oreohelix because of the substantial phenotypic plasticity that
exists for shell traits (Pilsbry 1916, p. 340; Chak 2007, pp. 3, 15;
Weaver et al. 2008, p. 908). Phenotypic plasticity is defined as the
ability of an individual genotype (genetic composition) to produce
multiple phenotypes (observable characteristics or traits) in response
to its environment. There is wide agreement among malacologists (the
branch of invertebrate zoology that deals with the study of Mollusca)
familiar with Oreohelix that relying exclusively on shell morphology to
designate taxa is problematic (McDonald 2010, pers. comm.; Oliver 2010,
pers. comm.; Weaver 2010a, pers. comm.). More robust taxonomic
designations within genus Oreohelix generally rely on differences in
internal anatomy, such as penis morphology (Pilsbry 1916, entire;
Pilsbry 1939, pp. 413-553; Chak 2007, p. 15). More recently, molecular
genetic methods have been used to reconcile taxonomic designations
originally based on morphological characteristics (e.g., Chak 2007, pp.
21-42; Weaver et al. 2008, entire).
The basis of the species designations for the Bearmouth
mountainsnail (Oreohelix sp. 3) and Byrne Resort mountainsnail
(Oreohelix sp. 31) is shell morphology (Frest and Johannes 1995, pp.
115, 139-140). Unfortunately, Frest and Johannes never published any of
their putative (presumed or supposed) species designations for
Oreohelix contained in their 1995 report. In some cases, species
designations by Frest and Johannes that relied entirely on shell
morphology were subsequently found to be in error when additional
morphological (Weaver 2006, p. 10) or genetic information (Chak 2007,
p. 1) was collected.
Taxonomy of the Bearmouth Mountainsnail (Oreohelix sp. 3)
The only additional information about the occurrence and taxonomic
status of Bearmouth mountainsnail comes from Dr. Weaver (Weaver 2010a,
2010b, pers. comm.). As described above, she identified two colonies of
Oreohelix in Montana that she believes represent Bearmouth
mountainsnail, based on the location of one colony and genetic
similarity (of mtDNA) of the two colonies (Weaver 2010b, pers. comm.).
Dr. Weaver observed that genetic analyses of individuals from these two
colonies (that she believes to represent Bearmouth mountainsnail)
revealed approximately 6 percent DNA sequence divergence relative to a
sister taxon (O. carinifera) in the same genus (Weaver 2010a, pers.
comm.). This level of divergence is consistent with species-level
differences in terrestrial mollusks (e.g., Weaver et al. 2008, pp. 913-
914). Thus, there is some evidence to suggest that the individuals she
sequenced are part of a distinct species or subspecies. Unfortunately,
archived individuals collected from the putative type location of
Bearmouth mountainsnail (as described in Frest and Johannes 1995, p.
115) are not available (Weaver 2010b, pers. comm.). Moreover, Frest and
Johannes did not provide the precise location of any of the ``type
localities'' (i.e., location where the specimens that define the
species were collected) for the undescribed species in their 1995
report (Frest and Johannes 1995, pp. 113-140). Consequently, there
remains uncertainty as to whether the ``Bearmouth mountainsnail''
proposed by Frest and Johannes (1995, p. 115) represents the same
entity that Dr. Weaver refers to as ``Bearmouth mountainsnail.''
Uncertainty notwithstanding, the Bearmouth mountainsnail is not
included as a valid taxon in the classic works by Pilsbry (1916,
entire; 1939, entire), which are still accepted as the most
authoritative publications on the taxonomy of Oreohelix; nor is the
Bearmouth mountainsnail listed among the Oreohelix taxa recognized by
more current sources such as the Integrated Taxonomic Information
System (ITIS 2010) or the Council of Systematic Malacologists and the
American Malacological Union (Turgeon et al. 1998, p. 143 in this
compilation of mollusk taxonomy by scientific experts). In summary, the
entity referred to as the ``Bearmouth mountainsnail'' has not been
formally described as a species according to accepted scientific
standards, and this entity is not widely recognized as a species or
subspecies by the scientific community. The type of additional
information that may permit a formal description may include a more
thorough description of the type specimen, an evaluation of various
lines of evidence (morphological, ecological, biogeographical, genetic)
relevant to its taxonomic status, resolution of any discrepancies in
taxonomic nomenclature, or a combination of these (e.g., Weaver 2006,
pp. 49-65), and that the taxon be accepted as valid by widely-
recognized sources (e.g., Turgeon et al. 1998, entire; ITIS 2010).
Taxonomic Status of Byrne Resort Mountainsnail (Oreohelix sp. 31)
There have been no additional collections of Byrne Resort
mountainsnail at the location initially described by Frest and Johannes
(1995, p. 140) (Hendricks 2010, pers. comm.; Weaver 2010b, pers.
comm.). Specimens collected near where Frest and Johannes made their
collection of Byrne Resort mountainsnail have been tentatively
identified as a variant of an existing species (lyrate mountainsnail,
Oreohelix haydeni) based on morphological characteristics (Hendricks
2010, pers. comm.). To our knowledge, there has been no follow-up
analysis of any specimens collected by Frest and Johannes (1995, pp.
139-140). Thus, we have virtually no information on this putative
species.
The taxonomic validity of the Byrne Resort mountainsnail is highly
uncertain given that the only description was based on shell
morphology, which, as discussed above, is widely recognized by the
scientific community as a poor trait for defining taxonomic groups in
Oreohelix (Pilsbry 1906, p. 340). Moreover, we are not aware of any
corroborating information concerning the taxonomic status of this
entity. The Byrne Resort mountainsnail is not listed as a valid taxon
in the classic works by Pilsbry (1916, entire; 1939, entire), which are
still accepted as the most authoritative publications on the taxonomy
of Oreohelix; nor is the Byrne Resort mountainsnail listed among the
Oreohelix taxa recognized by more current sources such as the Council
of Systematic Malacologists (e.g., Turgeon et al. 1998, p. 143) or the
Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS 2010). In short, the
entity referred to as ``Byrne Resort mountainsnail'' has not been
formally described as a species according to accepted scientific
standards, and this entity is not widely recognized as a species or
subspecies by the scientific community. The type of additional
information that may permit a formal description may include a more
[[Page 18688]]
thorough description of the type specimen, an evaluation of various
lines of evidence (morphological, ecological, biogeographical, genetic)
relevant to its taxonomic status, resolution of any discrepancies in
taxonomic nomenclature, or a combination of these (e.g., Weaver 2006,
pp. 49-65), and that the taxon be accepted as valid by widely-
recognized sources (e.g., Turgeon et al. 1998, entire; ITIS 2010).
Finding for the Bearmouth Mountainsnail (Oreohelix sp. 3) and Byrne
Resort Mountainsnail (Oreohelix sp. 31)
We have very little information on the distribution and abundance
of these two land snails. In fact, we could not find any information on
occurrence or even the existence of the species referred to as the
``Byrne Resort mountainsnail'' by Frest and Johannes (1995, p. 139). We
have some information, based on recent surveys and genetic analyses,
that two colonies of land snails tentatively identified by a species
expert as ``Bearmouth mountainsnail'' currently exist in the vicinity
of the Clark Fork River valley, Montana (Weaver 2010a, 2010b, pers.
comm.). To our knowledge, there has never been a systematic analysis of
the validity of taxonomic arrangements (i.e., subspecies or species)
that have been proposed for Oreohelix by Frest and Johannes (1995, pp.
113-140). Moreover, neither the Bearmouth mountainsnail nor the Byrne
Resort mountainsnail has been formally described as a species, and
neither is presently recognized as a species or subspecies by the
scientific community (e.g., Pilsbry 1939, entire; Turgeon et al. 1998,
p. 143; ITIS 2010).
Neither the Bearmouth mountainsnail nor the Byrne Resort
mountainsnail is recognized as a species or subspecies, and their
taxonomic statuses are currently uncertain. Consequently, the Service
does not at this time consider the Bearmouth mountainsnail or the Byrne
Resort mountainsnail to be listable entities under section 3(16) of the
Act (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)) because they do not belong to taxa currently
recognized by the scientific community. The Service encourages
additional scientific investigations that will resolve the significant
uncertainties concerning the occurrence and taxonomy of Oreohelix land
snails. Because we have concluded the Bearmouth mountainsnail and the
Byrne Resort mountainsnail are not listable entities, we will not be
further evaluating these mountainsnails under section 4(a)(1) of the
Act, and they will not be discussed further in this finding.
Species Information for the Meltwater Lednian Stonefly
Species Description and Taxonomy
The meltwater lednian stonefly (Lednia tumana) is in the monotypic
genus Lednia (Baumann 1975, p. 19; Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 263;
Stark et al. 2009, entire). The genus Lednia belongs to the phylum
Arthropoda, class Insecta, order Plecoptera (stoneflies), family
Nemouridae, and subfamily Nemourinae. The family Nemouridae is the
largest in the order Plecoptera (stoneflies), comprising more than 370
species in 17 genera (Baumann 1975, p. 1). In North America, family
Nemouridae comprises 73 species in 13 genera (Stark et al. 2009,
entire). The type specimens for the meltwater lednian stonefly were
collected in the Many Glaciers area of Glacier National Park (Glacier
NP), Montana (Baumann 1982, pers. comm.). The species was originally
described by Ricker in 1952 (Baumann 1975, p. 18), and is recognized as
a valid species by the scientific community (e.g., Baumann 1975, p. 18;
Baumann et al. 1977, pp. 7, 34; Newell et al. 2008, p. 181; Stark et
al. 2009, entire). Consequently, we conclude that the meltwater lednian
stonefly (Lednia tumana) is a valid species and, therefore, a listable
entity under section 3(16) of the Act.
Kondratieff and Lechleitner (2002, pp. 385, 391) reported that
specimens thought to be the meltwater lednian stonefly were collected
in Mount Rainier National Park (Mount Rainier NP), Washington. They
also cited a personal communication with a species expert (R.W.
Baumann, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT) that similar specimens
also are known from North Cascades National Park (North Cascades NP),
Washington, and a site in the California Sierra Nevada (Kondratieff and
Lechleitner 2002, pp. 388-389). However, the specimens discovered in
Mount Rainier NP, North Cascades NP, and in the Sierra Nevada Mountains
of California are now believed to represent additional undescribed taxa
(presumably in the genus Lednia) that await formal description (Baumann
2010, pers. comm.; Kondratieff 2010, pers. comm.; Kondratieff et al.
2006, p. 463). If these specimens are described as species in the genus
Lednia, then the genus Lednia would no longer be considered a monotypic
genus. However, the taxonomy of these additional specimens (from Mount
Rainier NP, North Cascades NP, and in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of
California) has not been evaluated or accepted by the scientific
community (e.g., Stark et al. 2009, entire). Thus, while there is some
preliminary indication that the taxonomy of the genus Lednia will be
revised when the new specimens are officially described, the meltwater
lednian stonefly remains the only species in the genus Lednia that is
currently recognized by the scientific community. Consequently, based
on the information presented above, the Service considers Lednia to be
a monotypic genus. Therefore, for the purpose of this finding, we are
evaluating the meltwater lednian stonefly, throughout its known range,
as a full species in a monotypic genus.
The nymph (aquatic juvenile stage) of the meltwater lednian
stonefly is dark red-brown on its dorsal (top) surface and pink on the
ventral (lower) surface, with light grey-green legs (Baumann and
Stewart 1980, p. 658). Mature nymphs can range in size from 4.5 to 6.5
millimeter (mm) (0.18 to 0.26 in.) (Baumann and Stewart 1980, p. 655).
Adults also are small, ranging in size from 4 to 6 mm (0.16 to 0.24
in.) (Baumann 1975, p. 19).
Biology and Life History
Plecoptera (stoneflies) are primarily associated with clean, cool,
running waters (Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 217). The Nemourids are
usually the dominant Plecoptera family in mountain-river ecosystems,
both in terms of total biomass and in numbers of species present
(Baumann 1975, p. 1). Eggs and larvae of all North American species of
stoneflies, including the meltwater lednian stonefly, are aquatic
(Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 217). Nemourid stonefly larvae are
typically herbivores or detritivores, and their feeding mode is
generally that of a shredder or collector-gatherer (Baumann 1975, p. 1;
Stewart and Harper 1996, pp. 218, 262). We have no information on the
longevity of the meltwater lednian stonefly, but in general stoneflies
can complete their life cycles within a single year (univoltine) or in
2 to 3 years (semivoltine) (Stewart and Harper 1996, pp. 217-218).
Adult meltwater lednian stoneflies are thought to emerge and breed in
August and September (Baumann and Stewart 1980, p. 658; Giersch 2010b,
pers. comm.; MNHP 2010a).
Distribution and Abundance
The current known distribution of the meltwater lednian stonefly is
restricted to a handful of locations just to the east and west of the
Continental Divide within Glacier NP (Newell et al. 2008, p. 181;
National Park Service (NPS) 2009; see Table 1 below). Within the last
13 years, the meltwater lednian stonefly has been observed in a total
of 11
[[Page 18689]]
streams within Glacier NP, at sites ranging from 1,628 to 2,378 meters
(m) elevation (5,341 to 7,801 feet (ft)) (NPS 2009; see Table 1 below).
Most collection sites have been in close proximity to glaciers. The
species can attain moderate to high abundance in certain locations
(e.g., Logan Creek: Baumann and Stewart 1980, p. 658; NPS 2009,
entire).
Table 1--Documented Occurrences of Meltwater Lednian Stonefly (Lednia tumana) During the Last 13 Years. All
Occurrences Are Within Glacier NP, Montana. Information Provided by NPS (2009) Based on Data Collected by F.
Richard Hauer (Flathead Lake Biological Station, Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Polson)
and Joe Giersch (DrunellaDesigns.com, West Glacier, Montana)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stream or drainage Year Elevation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
East of the Continental Divide (Glacier County, Montana)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baring Creek \a\........................... 1998 2,378 m (7,801 ft).
1999 2,173 m (7,129 ft).
2003 2,273 m (7,457 ft).
2009 2,024 m (6,640 ft).
Lunch Creek a b............................ 1999 2,173 m (7,129 ft).
2003 2,273 m (7,457 ft).
2009 2,024 m (6,640 ft).
Reynolds Creek a b......................... 1997 2,171 m (7,123 ft).
2,170 m (7,119 ft).
2,140 m (7,021 ft).
2,106 m (6,909 ft).
2,165 m (7,103 ft).
1998 2,169 m (7,116 ft).
2,068 m (6,785 ft).
2,099 m (6,886 ft).
2,165 m (7,103 ft).
St. Mary River \a\......................... 1999 2,054 m (6,739 ft).
Swiftcurrent Creek \a\..................... 2007 1,628 m (5,341 ft).
Twin Lakes (St. Mary River)................ 1998 2,265 m (7,431 ft).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
West of the Continental Divide (Flathead County, Montana)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahern Creek................................ 1998 2,065 m (6,775 ft).
Bear Creek................................. 2001 1,696 m (5,564 ft).
Hidden Lake (Hidden Creek)................. 1998 2,302 m (7,552 ft).
Logan Creek a b............................ 1998 2,115 m (6,939 ft).
2,031 m (6,663 ft).
Mineral Creek.............................. 1997 2,017 m (6,617 ft)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collection Location Details
\a\ Stream directly associated with a named glacier within that watershed or an unnamed glacier present on a
7.5' topographic map.
\b\ Multiple collections within a stream are itemized by year and elevation.
Although the species has been observed recently only in Glacier NP,
experts speculate that suitable habitat for the species may extend
north into Waterton Lakes National Park in Canada and south into the
Scapegoat-Great Bear-Bob Marshall wilderness areas of Montana, or in
similar areas of the northern Rocky Mountains in alpine snow-melt
streams (e.g., Baumann 1982, pers. comm.; Giersch 2010a, pers. comm.).
The species was previously reported from the Waterton River system in
Alberta (Donald and Anderson 1977, p. 114). However, surveys conducted
in Waterton Lakes National Park (Canada) during 2007 and 2008 did not
detect the species (Langor 2010, pers. comm.), although it is unclear
if the proper habitat was surveyed (Johnston 2010, pers. comm.).
In general, little information exists about the meltwater lednian
stonefly, and additional surveys are needed in order to develop a more
thorough understanding of its distribution and abundance (e.g., Giersch
2010a, 2010b, pers. comm.). In the interim, we conclude based on the
available recent survey information that the meltwater lednian stonefly
is a narrow endemic present only in Glacier NP.
Habitat
The meltwater lednian stonefly is found in snow-melt runoff streams
in high-elevation, alpine areas, most typically in locations closely
linked to glacial runoff (Baumann and Stewart 1980, p. 658; MNHP 2010a)
or alpine springs (Hauer et al. 2007, p. 107; Giersch 2010c, pers.
comm.). The species is considered a cold-water stenotherm restricted to
water less than (<) 10 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (< 50 degrees
Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) (MNHP 2010a), but apparently it can tolerate
higher water temperatures (up to 15 [deg]C (59 [deg]F)) in certain
situations (Hauer et al. 2007, p. 107) for short periods of time
(Giersch 2010c, pers. comm.). Most aquatic invertebrates in stream
environments in the northern Rocky Mountains exhibit very strong
elevation (temperature) gradients in their distribution (e.g., Fagre et
al. 1997, p. 763; Lowe and Hauer 1999, pp. 1637, 1640, 1642; Hauer et
al. 2007, p. 110), and occur at the highest population density in their
preferred temperature range. We presume the meltwater lednian stonefly
exhibits a similar pattern, in terms of being more likely to be present
and more abundant in the small (first order), cold, snowmelt-driven,
alpine streams, and less likely to occur farther downstream within a
drainage in larger habitats (second order and larger streams) with
warmer water temperatures. In general, the alpine
[[Page 18690]]
streams inhabited by the meltwater lednian stonefly are presumed to
have very low nutrient concentrations (low nitrogen and phosphorus),
reflecting the nutrient content of the glacial or snow-melt source
(Hauer et al. 2007, pp. 107-108). The daytime microhabitat preferences
of meltwater lednian stonefly nymphs are the underside of rocks or
larger pieces of bark or wood (Baumann and Stewart 1980, p. 658).
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors for the Meltwater
Lednian Stonefly
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding species to the
Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under
section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be
endangered or threatened based on any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In making this finding, information pertaining to meltwater lednian
stonefly in relation to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of
the Act is discussed below.
In considering what factors might constitute threats to a species,
we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a factor to evaluate
whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that causes
actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor and the
species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we attempt
to determine how significant a threat it is. The threat is significant
if it drives, or contributes to, the risk of extinction of the species
such that the species warrants listing as endangered or threatened as
those terms are defined in the Act.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
The known distribution of the meltwater lednian stonefly is
entirely within the boundaries of Glacier NP. The ecosystems in most
national parks are considered to be comparatively pristine, and the
Glacier NP is a relatively unaltered landscape when compared to other
areas of western North America (Fagre 2005, p. 2).
Climate Change
Climate is influenced primarily by long-term patterns in air
temperature and precipitation. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) has concluded that climate warming is unequivocal, and is
now evident from observed increases in global average air and ocean
temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global
mean sea level (IPCC 2007, pp. 30-31). Continued greenhouse gas
emissions at or above current rates are expected to cause further
warming (IPCC 2007, p. 30). The years from 1995 through 2006 rank among
the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global average near-
surface temperature since 1850 (Independent Scientific Advisory Board
(ISAB) 2007, p. 7; IPCC 2007, p. 30). During the last century, mean
annual air temperature increased by approximately 0.6 [deg]C (1.1
[deg]F) (IPCC 2007, p. 30). Warming appears to have accelerated in
recent decades, as the linear warming trend over the 50 years from 1956
to 2005 (average 0.13 [deg]C or 0.24 [deg]F per decade) is nearly twice
that for the 100 years from 1906 to 2005 (IPCC 2007, p. 30). Climate
change scenarios estimate that the mean air temperature could increase
by over 3 [deg]C (5.4 [deg]F) by 2100 (IPCC 2007, pp. 45-46). The IPCC
also projects there will likely be regional increases in the frequency
of hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation, as well as
greater warming in high northern latitudes (IPCC 2007, p. 46).
We recognize that there are scientific differences of opinion on
many aspects of climate change, including the role of natural
variability in climate. In our analysis, we rely primarily on synthesis
documents (IPCC 2007, entire; ISAB 2007, entire; Karl et al. 2009,
entire) that present the consensus view of a large number of experts on
climate change from around the world. We find that these synthesis
reports, as well as the scientific papers used in, or resulting from,
those reports represent the best available scientific information we
can use to inform our decision. Where possible, we use empirical data
or projections specific to Glacier NP and the surrounding area and
focus on observed or expected effects on stream systems, as this area
includes the known distribution of the meltwater lednian stonefly.
Water temperature and hydrology (stream flow) influence many of the
basic physical and biological processes in aquatic systems, and both
are sensitive to environmental changes that result from climate change
(e.g., Stewart et al. 2005, entire; Isaak et al. 2010, entire; Kaushal
et al. 2010, entire). For ectothermic organisms like aquatic
invertebrates, temperature sets basic constraints on species'
distribution and physiological performance (Fagre et al. 1997, p. 763;
Lowe and Hauer 1999, pp. 1637, 1640, 1642; Hauer et al. 2007, p. 110).
Stream hydrology not only affects the structure of aquatic systems
across space and time, but influences the life history and phenology
(timing of life-cycle events) of aquatic invertebrates such as
stoneflies (Stewart and Harper 1996, pp. 217-218).
Significant trends in water temperature and stream flow have been
observed in the western United States (Stewart et al. 2005, entire;
Kaushal et al. 2010, entire), and increased air temperatures and
changes in precipitation are partially responsible. During the past 50
to 100 years in the western United States, the timing of runoff from
snowmelt has shifted to occur 1 to 4 weeks earlier (Regonda et al.
2005, p. 380; Stewart et al. 2005, pp. 1136, 1141; Hamlet et al. 2007,
p. 1468), presumably as a result of increased temperatures (Hamlet et
al. 2007, p. 1468), increased frequency of melting (Mote et al. 2005,
p. 45), and decreased snowpack (Mote et al. 2005, p. 41). Trends in
decreased water availability also are apparent across the Pacific
Northwest. For example, Luce and Holden (2009, entire) found a tendency
toward more extreme droughts at 72 percent of the stream flow gages
they examined across Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington.
The western United States appears to be warming faster than the
global average. In the Pacific Northwest, regionally averaged
temperatures have risen 0.8 [deg]C (1.5 [deg]F) over the last century
and as much as 2 [deg]C (4 [deg]F) in some areas. Since 1900, the mean
annual air temperature for Glacier NP and the surrounding region has
increased 1.33 [deg]C, which is 1.8 times the global mean increase
(U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2010, p. 1). Mean annual air
temperatures are projected to increase by another 1.5 to 5.5 [deg]C (3
to 10 [deg]F) over the next 100 years (Karl et al. 2009, p. 135).
Warming also appears to be very pronounced in alpine regions globally
(e.g., Hall and Fagre 2003, p. 134 and references therein).
For the purposes of this finding, we consider the foreseeable
future for anticipated environmental changes such as reductions in
glacial meltwater and increases in stream temperatures to be
approximately 40 years based on two factors. First, various global
climate models (GCMs) and emissions scenarios give consistent
predictions within that
[[Page 18691]]
timeframe (Ray et al. 2010, p. 11). Second, the effect of climate
change on glaciers in Glacier NP has been modeled within that time
range (e.g., Hall and Fagre 2003, entire). We used a similar
foreseeable future time period when considering climate change
projections in other 12-month findings for species in western North
America (see American pika (Ochotona princeps), 75 FR 6438, February 9,
2010; Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus), 75 FR 54708, September 8,
2010).
While projected patterns of warming across North America are
generally consistent across different GCMs and emissions scenarios (Ray
et al. 2010, p. 22), there tends to be less agreement among models for
whether mean annual precipitation will increase or decrease, but the
models seem to indicate an increase in precipitation in winter and a
decrease in summer (Ray et al. 2010, pp. 22-23). In the foreseeable
future, natural variation will likely confound a clear prediction for
precipitation based on current climate models (Ray et al. 2010, p. 29).
Although there is considerable uncertainty about how climate will
evolve at any specific location, statistically downscaled climate
projection models (models that predict climate at finer spatial
resolution than GCMs) for the western United States also support
widespread warming, with warmer temperature zones shifting to the north
and upward in elevation (Ray et al. 2010, pp. 23-24).
Based on the information described above, we believe that
environmental changes resulting from climate change may affect the
meltwater lednian stonefly through two primary mechanisms: (1) Loss of
glaciers, and (2) changes in hydrology and increased water temperature.
Glacier Loss
Environmental changes resulting from climate change are assumed to
be directly related to the well-documented loss of glaciers in Glacier
NP (e.g., Hall and Fagre 2003, entire; Fagre 2005, entire). Glacier NP
contained approximately 150 glaciers larger than 0.1 square kilometer
(25 acres) in size when established in 1910, but presently only 25
glaciers larger than 0.1 square kilometers in size (25 acres) remain in
the park (Fagre 2005, pp. 1-3; USGS 2005, 2010). Between 1966 and 2006,
the 25 largest glaciers (those that are presently believed to be larger
than 0.1 square kilometer (25 acres) in area) shrank by an average of
26.4 percent, whereas smaller glaciers (those that are presently
believed to be smaller than 0.1 square kilometer (25 acres) in area)
shrank at more than twice that rate (59.7 percent) (USGS 2010).
Hall and Fagre (2003, entire) modeled the effects of climate change
on glaciers in Glacier NP's Blackfoot-Jackson basin using then-current
climate assumptions (doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide by 2030).
Current climate change publications consider scenarios with higher
anticipated carbon dioxide concentrations and associated temperature
changes. However, we are not aware of any other published studies using
more recent climate scenarios that speak directly to anticipated
conditions in Glacier NP, so we use Hall and Fagre's predictions in our
analysis. Under this scenario, they predicted that increases in winter
precipitation would not be able to buffer glacial shrinking, and the
Blackfoot-Jackson glaciers, which are among the largest in Glacier NP,
would disappear entirely by 2030 (Hall and Fagre 2003, pp. 137-138).
Glacial shrinking varies by topography (structure and position of
land underlying the glaciers), with the result that glaciers shrink at
different rates (e.g., Key et al. 2002, p. J370; Hall and Fagre 2003,
p. 136). Given the greater relative rate of shrinkage observed in
smaller glaciers (e.g., USGS 2010), we presume that if Hall and Fagre's
projections are correct, then nearly all glaciers should be gone from
Glacier NP by 2030. We base our analysis as to whether climate change
threatens the meltwater lednian stonefly on this assumption.
The consequences of glacier shrinking and glacier loss to aquatic
systems inhabited by the meltwater lednian stonefly in Glacier NP are
expected to be significant (e.g., Fagre 2005, p. 8). Glaciers act as
water banks, whose continual melt helps regulate stream water
temperatures and maintain streamflows during late summer or drought
periods (Hauer et al. 2007, p. 107; USGS 2010). Loss of glaciers may
lead to direct dewatering of headwater stream reaches, thus desiccating
(drying) habitats currently occupied by lednian stoneflies that are
often in close proximity to glaciers (e.g., Baumann and Stewart 1980,
p. 658). Permanent desiccation (i.e., no streamflow) resulting from
loss of glaciers is expected to result directly in the loss of suitable
habitat for the meltwater lednian stonefly and the extirpation of
populations that are directly dependent on surface runoff from melting
glaciers.
In some cases, streams might change from perennial (always flowing)
to ephemeral (only flowing seasonally) as glaciers disappear (Hauer et
al. 1997, p. 909). A transition from perennial to ephemeral streamflow
also is expected to reduce the extent of habitat suitable for the
meltwater lednian stonefly; however, the actual response may be more
complex in this scenario. For example, adults of the species emerge
(transition from aquatic larvae to terrestrial winged adults) and
reproduce in the short time period in August and September when the
streams are not covered with seasonal snowpack. The species is thus
adapted to reproduce in a very narrow ecological window. If the stream
only flows seasonally, the species may still be able to complete its
life cycle if the nymph (larval) stage can withstand seasonal stream
drying. We do not know whether the species can complete its entire life
cycle within 1 year (univoltine) or across more than 1 year
(semivoltine), nor do we have projections for which streams may dry
seasonally in Glacier NP. Therefore, at this time we cannot accurately
predict the response of the species in cases where streams change from
perennial to ephemeral. However, we do presume that this change will,
at a minimum, reduce the distribution and abundance of the species.
Loss of glaciers also may indirectly affect alpine streams by
changing the riparian vegetation and nutrient cycling in stream
ecosystems. For example, the reduced snowpacks that lead to glacier
recession are predicted to allow high-elevation trees to become
established above the current treeline and in subalpine meadows, and
thus to reduce the diversity of herbaceous plants (Hall and Fagre 2003,
pp. 138-139). Changes in riparian vegetation (such as a shift from
deciduous to coniferous vegetation) may affect nutrient cycling in
headwater streams and the quality of food resources available to
herbivorous aquatic insects (e.g., Hisabae et al. 2010, pp. 5-7), such
as the meltwater lednian stonefly and other aquatic macroinvertebrates.
Changes to Streamflow and Water Temperature
Reduced water volume of snowmelt runoff from glaciers (Fagre 2005,
p. 7), combined with earlier runoff (e.g., Fagre 2005, p. 1) and
increases in temperatures expected under climate change (Karl et al.
2009, p. 135), may result in water temperatures above the physiological
limits for survival or optimal growth for the meltwater lednian
stonefly, which is a cold-water species (MNHP 2010a). Given the strong
temperature gradients that influence the distribution of aquatic
invertebrates (Fagre et al. 1997, p. 763; Lowe and Hauer 1999, pp.
1637, 1640, 1642; Hauer et al. 2007, p. 110) and our
[[Page 18692]]
assumption that the meltwater lednian stonefly responds similarly to
these types of gradients, we expect that there will be major changes in
invertebrate communities, with species that currently occupy more
downstream reaches shifting their distributions to higher elevations to
track changing thermal regimes (e.g., Fagre 2005, p. 7). One likely
result is the displacement or extirpation or both of stenothermic
species that occupy headwater stream reaches (such as the meltwater
lednian stonefly), due to thermal conditions that become unsuitable,
encroaching aquatic invertebrate species that may be superior
competitors, or changed thermal conditions that may favor the
encroaching species in competitive interactions between the species
(so-called condition-specific competition). Consequently, we infer that
changes in the timing and volume of streamflow coupled with increased
summer water temperatures will reduce the extent of suitable habitat
and result in the extirpation of some meltwater lednian stonefly
populations.
In summary, we expect environmental changes resulting from climate
change to affect the meltwater lednian stonefly through loss of
glaciers, which can lead to the permanent or seasonal drying of
currently occupied habitats, and through interrelated alterations to
existing hydrologic and thermal regimes, which will reduce the extent
of habitat suitable for this species because it has very specific
thermal requirements (i.e., it is a cold-water obligate). Environmental
changes resulting from climate change are ongoing based on the
documented shrinking of glaciers in Glacier NP, and are expected to
continue in the foreseeable future in Glacier NP (e.g., Fagre and Hall
2003, entire) and across western North America (USGS 2010, p.1; Karl et
al. 2009, p. 135). Consequently, we conclude that the threat of current
and future environmental changes resulting from climate change occurs
over the entire range of the species. This threat has likely reduced
the amount of suitable habitat for the meltwater lednian stonefly,
based on the documented extent of glacial melting. However, data on the
species is sparse and limited to a handful of observations (e.g., see
Table 1 above). Thus, we have no empirical basis for evaluating whether
there are any trends in the occurrence or abundance of the species, nor
can we speak to whether environmental changes resulting from climate
change have actually affected populations. We reason that future
environmental changes resulting from climate change will likely result
in the extirpation of populations of the meltwater lednian stonefly
because of stream drying and increased water temperatures, and that
there will be substantial reductions in the amount of suitable habitat
for the species relative to its current range. Effects on populations
found in spring habitats may lag behind those found in stream habitats
directly associated with melting glaciers or snowfields. Chemical,
hydrologic, and thermal conditions of both habitat types are ultimately
influenced by melting snow and ice, but conditions in spring habitats
are more stable (e.g., Hauer et al. 2007, p. 107; Giersch 2010c, pers.
comm.) and should change more slowly because their groundwater sources
are storing water from melted snow and ice. Ultimately, spring habitats
might also dry as their groundwater sources are depleted, and not
replenished by glacial meltwater.
The impacts of environmental changes resulting from climate change
will likely continue within the foreseeable future (40 years). Due to
the magnitude and extent of the effects of the environmental changes
resulting from climate change, we conclude that the environmental
changes resulting from climate change constitute a significant threat
to the meltwater lednian stonefly in the foreseeable future.
Maintenance and Improvement of Glacier National Park Infrastructure
Glacier NP is managed to protect natural and cultural resources,
and the landscape within the park is relatively pristine. However, the
Glacier NP does include a number of human-built facilities and
structures, such as the Going-to-the-Sun Road (which bisects the
Glacier NP) and numerous visitor centers, trailheads, overlooks, and
lodges (e.g., NPS 2003a, pp. S3, 11). Maintenance and improvement of
these facilities and structures could conceivably lead to disturbance
of the natural environment.
One major project initiated in 2003, and that is ongoing as of
2011, is the improvement of the Going-to-the-Sun Road (NPS 2003a;
2003b). This road parallels or bisects a number of streams in the
Glacier NP including McDonald, Logan, Lunch, Siyeh, and Baring Creeks
(NPS 2003a, p. 134). Localized land disturbance associated with
construction activities could lead to introduction of sediment into
stream channels (e.g., NPS 2003a, pp. S18-S19, 74). However, the
collection sites for the meltwater lednian stonefly in streams adjacent
to or bisected by the road (e.g., Logan, Lunch, and Baring Creeks; see
Table 1 above) are all upstream from the road. We anticipate that any
disturbance to aquatic habitats from road construction would occur in
the immediate vicinity of the construction and that any impacts (i.e.,
sediment input) would be translated downstream. Thus, we conclude that
road maintenance does not constitute a threat to the meltwater lednian
stonefly or its habitat now or in the foreseeable future.
We do not have any information indicating maintenance and
improvement of other Glacier NP facilities and structures is affecting
the species. Most documented occurrences of meltwater lednian stonefly
are in remote locations upstream from human-built structures; thus we
conclude that maintenance and improvement of other Glacier NP
facilities and structures does not constitute a threat to the meltwater
lednian stonefly or its habitat now or in the foreseeable future.
Glacier National Park Visitor Impacts
Between 2000 to 2008, Glacier NP averaged more than 1.8 million
visitors annually (NPS 2008). Many of the recent collection sites for
the meltwater lednian stonefly (e.g., Logan and Reynolds Creeks; see
Table 1 above) are near visitor centers or adjacent to popular hiking
trails. Theoretically, human activity (wading) in streams by anglers or
hikers could disturb meltwater lednian stonefly habitat. However, we
consider it unlikely that many Glacier NP visitors would actually wade
in stream habitats where the species has been collected, because the
sites are in small, high-elevation streams situated in rugged terrain,
and most would not be suitable for angling. In addition, the sites are
typically snow covered into late July or August (Giersch 2010a, pers.
comm.), and the alpine areas begin to accumulate snowpack in the fall,
so the sites occupied by the stonefly are not accessible for more than
a few months. We also note that the most accessible collection sites in
Logan Creek near the Logan Pass Visitor Center and the Going-to-the-Sun
Road (so called ``Jones Flat'' at Oberlin Bend) are currently closed to
public use and entry to protect resident vegetation (NPS 2010, pp. J5,
J24). We conclude that impacts to the meltwater lednian stonefly and
its habitat from public visitors to Glacier NP do not constitute a
threat now or in the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor A
Climate change, and the associated effects of glacier loss, reduced
streamflows, and increased water temperatures, is expected to
[[Page 18693]]
significantly reduce the occurrence of populations and extent of
suitable habitat for the meltwater lednian stonefly in Glacier NP in
the foreseeable future. Nearly all known recent occurrences of the
meltwater lednian stonefly are in close proximity to glaciers that are
projected to disappear during the next 20 years. Consequently, we
expect that the environmental changes resulting from climate change
will significantly alter the habitat of all extant populations of the
meltwater lednian stonefly, and we conclude that the loss of glaciers
represents a high-intensity threat (i.e., one that results in dramatic
changes to the species' habitat and distribution) and that this threat
is, and will continue to be, large in scope (most, if not all, known
populations will be affected) now and into the foreseeable future. The
significant reduction in glacier size observed during the past 40 years
is evidence that the environmental changes resulting from climate
change also may represent a current threat to this species, but we do
not have any information on trends in the occurrence of meltwater
lednian stonefly populations or changes in densities of specific
populations to confirm this. In addition, we anticipate that effects of
the environmental changes resulting from climate change on the species
will become more pronounced, or that they will accelerate in the
foreseeable future, as glaciers melt and eventually disappear in
Glacier NP. In conclusion, we find that the meltwater lednian stonefly
is likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future
because of the environmental changes resulting from climate change.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
We are not aware of any threats involving the overutilization or
collection of the meltwater lednian stonefly (Lednia tumana) for any
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes at this
time. We are aware that specimens are occasionally collected for
scientific purposes to determine its distribution and abundance (e.g.,
Baumann and Stewart 1980, pp. 655, 658; NPS 2009); however, the species
is observed to be relatively abundant in preferred habitats (e.g., NPS
2009). We have no information that suggests past collections, current
collections, or any collections in the foreseeable future will result
in population-level effects to the species. Consequently, we do not
consider overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes to be a threat to the meltwater lednian stonefly.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
We are not aware of any diseases that affect the meltwater lednian
stonefly. Therefore, we do not consider disease to be a threat to the
species now or in the foreseeable future.
We presume that nymph and adult meltwater lednian stoneflies may
occasionally be subject to predation by bird species such as the
American dipper (Cinclus mexicanus). The American dipper prefers to
feed on aquatic invertebrates in fast-moving, clear, alpine streams
(MNHP 2010b), and the species is native to Glacier NP. As such,
predation by American dipper on the meltwater lednian stonefly wo
