Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Eleven Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species, 78029-78038 [2020-26139]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 233 / Thursday, December 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
pressure toward this end because
applicants know that only the best
application in an MX group will win.
9. The Commission also rejects
Discount Legal’s argument that ‘‘the
idea than an applicant must be
dismissed because it is comparatively
inferior to an unqualified applicant
being dismissed’’ violates the Supreme
Court’s holding in Ashbacker Radio
Corp. v. FCC. The Commission
previously considered and rejected this
argument in a prior decision affirming
the one-grant policy and explained that
Ashbacker ‘‘[does not] require the
Commission to engage in secondary
analyses of inferior applications simply
because they do not conflict with the
tentative selectee.’’
10. Administrative Burdens. The
Commission rejects Discount Legal’s
contention that the concern about
administrative burdens ‘‘does not hold
up.’’ Discount Legal does not consider
the extensive work required following
the issuance of tentative selectee orders.
The Commission explains that a
tentative selection is not final until the
entire administrative process of
resolving petitions to deny, and any
subsequent pleadings, is complete.
Commission review of any petitions and
associated point audits is a weighty and
oftentimes lengthy process, requiring
extensive analysis to determine the
status of every tentative selectee’s
application and the merits of every
petition to deny. If a petition to deny is
granted, a new tentative selectee must
be chosen, and petitions to deny must
again be entertained.
11. The one-grant policy incentivizes
applicants to resolve mutual
exclusivities through the more
expeditious settlement process, thereby
accelerating new NCE service to the
public. The Commission rejects
Discount Legal’s argument that it is
irrational to allow multiple grants in an
MX group in the settlement context but
not engage in secondary analysis
through the point system. This
argument does not account for the
fundamentally different nature of the
two conflict-resolution methods and the
time each process entails.
12. The Commission also rejects the
argument that secondary grants would
better accomplish the section 152 and
303(g) statutory objectives of efficient
and effective radio use. The
Commission explains that simply
granting as many applications as
possible in any given window will not
result in greater long-term efficiency
and effectiveness. Rather, the one-grant
policy better serves the policy goals of
sections 152 and 303(g) by incentivizing
better applications as well as
cooperative settlements that encourage
more intensive and higher quality use of
spectrum.
13. Established One-Grant Policy.
Finally, the Commission’s rejects
Discount Legal’s argument that the onegrant policy was not endorsed by the
Commission, but rather, originated with
the Bureau staff. The Commission
explains that Discount Legal’s
characterization is directly at odds with
the Commission’s explicit mandate in
the 2001 NCE Comparative MO&O, the
subsequent Commission decisions
stating that the Bureau correctly applied
the NCE Comparative MO&O, and the
Commission’s recent reaffirmation of
the one-grant policy in the 2019 Report
and Order. These decisions reflect that
it has been, and remains, the resolve of
the Commission—not the staff—that the
Bureau process applications based on a
‘‘one-grant’’ policy.
Ordering Clauses
14. It is ordered that the Petition for
Reconsideration filed on March 12,
2020, by Discount Legal is dismissed,
and alternatively and independently, is
denied.
15. It is further ordered that should no
further petitions for reconsideration or
petitions for judicial review be timely
filed, MB Docket No. 19–3 shall be
terminated, and its docket closed.
Monday, May 11, 2020, make the
following correction:
On page 27852, in the second column,
amendatory instruction 2d is corrected
to read as follows:
■
§ 171.7
[FR Doc. C1–2020–06205 Filed 12–2–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1301–00–D
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Eleven Species Not
Warranted for Listing as Endangered
or Threatened Species
AGENCY:
Jkt 253001
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION:
Notification of findings.
[Docket No. PHMSA–2017–0108 (HM–215O)]
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce
findings that eleven species are not
warranted for listing as endangered or
threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). After a thorough review
of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we find that it
is not warranted at this time to list the
Doll’s daisy, Puget Oregonian, Rocky
Mountain monkeyflower, southern
white-tailed ptarmigan, tidewater
amphipod, tufted puffin, Hamlin Valley
pyrg, longitudinal gland pyrg, subglobose snake pyrg, the Johnson Springs
Wetland Complex population of relict
dace, or Clear Lake hitch. However, we
ask the public to submit to us at any
time any new information relevant to
the status of any of the species
mentioned above or their habitats.
RIN 2137–AF32
DATES:
Hazardous Materials: Harmonization
With International Standards
ADDRESSES:
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020–23306 Filed 12–2–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, 174, 175,
176, 178 and 180
Correction
In rule document 2020–06205,
beginning on page 27810, in the issue of
SUMMARY:
The findings in this document
were made on December 3, 2020.
Detailed descriptions of the
bases for these findings are available on
the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov under the
following docket numbers:
Docket No.
Doll’s daisy ...............................................................................................
Puget Oregonian ......................................................................................
15:55 Dec 02, 2020
[Corrected]
d. Add paragraphs (w)(53), (62), (66),
(69), (71), (72), and (75) through (77);
Species
VerDate Sep<11>2014
78029
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
FWS–R5–ES–2020–0066.
FWS–R1–ES–2020–0067.
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
03DER1
78030
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 233 / Thursday, December 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Species
Docket No.
Rocky Mountain monkeyflower ................................................................
Southern white-tailed ptarmigan ...............................................................
Tidewater amphipod .................................................................................
Tufted puffin ..............................................................................................
Hamlin Valley pyrg ...................................................................................
Longitudinal gland pyrg ............................................................................
Sub-globose snake pyrg ...........................................................................
Relict dace ................................................................................................
Clear Lake hitch .......................................................................................
Supporting information used to
prepare this finding is available by
contacting the appropriate person as
specified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any
new information, materials, comments,
or questions concerning this finding to
the appropriate person, as specified
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Species
Contact information
Doll’s daisy ...............................................................................................
Eric Schrading, Field Supervisor, New Jersey Field Office, (609) 382–
5272.
Brad Thompson, State Supervisor, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, (360) 753–9440.
Ann Timberman, Acting Field Supervisor, Colorado Ecological Services
Field Office, (970) 628–7181.
Ann Timberman, Acting Field Supervisor, Colorado Ecological Services
Field Office, (970) 628–7181.
Julie A. Slacum, Division Chief, Strategic Resource Conservation,
Chesapeake Bay Field Office, (410) 573–4595.
Stewart Cogswell, Field Supervisor, Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office, (907) 271–2787.
Laura Romin, Deputy Field Supervisor, Utah Ecological Services Field
Office, (801) 975–3330, ext. 142.
Mark Jackson, Field Supervisor, Reno Fish and Wildlife Office, (775)
861–6300.
Kim Turner, Acting Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, (916) 414–6700.
Puget Oregonian ......................................................................................
Rocky Mountain monkeyflower ................................................................
Southern white-tailed ptarmigan ...............................................................
Tidewater amphipod .................................................................................
Tufted puffin ..............................................................................................
Hamlin Valley pyrg, longitudinal gland pyrg, and sub-globose snake
pyrg.
Relict dace ................................................................................................
Clear Lake hitch .......................................................................................
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), please call the
Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we are required to
make a finding whether or not a
petitioned action is warranted within 12
months after receiving any petition for
which we have determined contains
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted
(‘‘12-month finding’’). We must make a
finding that the petitioned action is: (1)
Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3)
warranted but precluded. We must
publish a notice of these 12-month
findings in the Federal Register.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
FWS–R6–ES–2012–0052.
FWS–R6–ES–2012–0023.
FWS–R5–ES–2020–0068.
FWS–R7–ES–2020–0072.
FWS–R6–ES–2020–0069.
FWS–R6–ES–2020–0070.
FWS–R6–ES–2020–0071.
FWS–R8–ES–2020–0113.
FWS–R8–ES–2020–0112.
Summary of Information Pertaining to
the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and the implementing regulations at
part 424 of title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424)
set forth procedures for adding species
to, removing species from, or
reclassifying species on the Lists of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Dec 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants (Lists). The Act defines
‘‘species’’ as any subspecies of fish or
wildlife or plants, and any distinct
population segment of any species of
vertebrate fish or wildlife which
interbreeds when mature. The Act
defines ‘‘endangered species’’ as any
species that is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)), and
‘‘threatened species’’ as any species that
is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Under
section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may
be determined to be an endangered
species or a threatened species because
of 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
These factors represent broad
categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an
effect on a species’ continued existence.
In evaluating these actions and
conditions, we look for those that may
have a negative effect on individuals of
the species, as well as other actions or
conditions that may ameliorate any
negative effects or may have positive
effects.
We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in
general to actions or conditions that are
known to or are reasonably likely to
negatively affect individuals of a
species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes
actions or conditions that have a direct
impact on individuals (direct impacts),
as well as those that affect individuals
through alteration of their habitat or
required resources (stressors). The term
‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either
together or separately—the source of the
action or condition or the action or
condition itself. However, the mere
identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets
the statutory definition of an
‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened
species.’’ In determining whether a
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
03DER1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 233 / Thursday, December 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
species meets either definition, we must
evaluate all identified threats by
considering the expected response by
the species, and the effects of the
threats—in light of those actions and
conditions that will ameliorate the
threats—on an individual, population,
and species level. We evaluate each
threat and its expected effects on the
species, then analyze the cumulative
effect of all of the threats on the species
as a whole. We also consider the
cumulative effect of the threats in light
of those actions and conditions that will
have positive effects on the species,
such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The
Secretary determines whether the
species meets the definition of an
‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened
species’’ only after conducting this
cumulative analysis and describing the
expected effect on the species now and
in the foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term
‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in
the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened
species.’’ Our implementing regulations
at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a
framework for evaluating the foreseeable
future on a case-by-case basis. The term
‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far
into the future as the Service can
reasonably determine that both the
future threats and the species’ responses
to those threats are likely. In other
words, the foreseeable future is the
period of time in which we can make
reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not
mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to
provide a reasonable degree of
confidence in the prediction. Thus, a
prediction is reliable if it is reasonable
to depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary
to define foreseeable future as a
particular number of years. Analysis of
the foreseeable future uses the best
scientific and commercial data available
and should consider the timeframes
applicable to the relevant threats and to
the species’ likely responses to those
threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically
relevant to assessing the species’
biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan,
reproductive rates or productivity,
certain behaviors, and other
demographic factors.
In conducting our evaluation of the
five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of
the Act to determine whether the Doll’s
daisy (Boltonia montana), Puget
Oregonian (Cryptomastix devia), Rocky
Mountain monkeyflower (Mimulus
gemmiparus), southern white-tailed
ptarmigan (Lagopus leucura altipetens),
tidewater amphipod (Stygobromus
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Dec 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
indentatus), tufted puffin (Fratercula
cirrhata), Hamlin Valley pyrg
(Pyrgulopsis hamlinensis), longitudinal
gland pyrg (Pyrgulopsis anguina), subglobose snake pyrg (Pyrgulopsis
saxatilis), and Clear Lake hitch (Lavinia
exilicauda chi) meet the definition of
‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened
species,’’ we considered and thoroughly
evaluated the best scientific and
commercial information available
regarding the past, present, and future
stressors and threats. We reviewed the
petitions, information available in our
files, and other available published and
unpublished information. Our
evaluation may include information
from recognized experts; Federal, State,
and tribal governments; academic
institutions; foreign governments;
private entities; and other members of
the public.
The species assessment forms for the
Doll’s daisy, Puget Oregonian, Rocky
Mountain monkeyflower, southern
white-tailed ptarmigan, tidewater
amphipod, tufted puffin, Hamlin Valley
pyrg, longitudinal gland pyrg, subglobose snake pyrg, the Johnson Springs
Wetland Complex population of relict
dace, and Clear Lake hitch contain more
detailed biological information, a
thorough analysis of the listing factors,
and an explanation of why we
determined that these species do not
meet the definition of an endangered
species or a threatened species. This
supporting information can be found on
the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov under the
appropriate docket number (see
ADDRESSES, above). The following are
informational summaries for the
findings in this document.
Doll’s Daisy
Previous Federal Actions
On April 20, 2010, we received a
petition from the Center for Biological
Diversity (CBD), Alabama Rivers
Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood
Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network,
Tennessee Forests Council, and West
Virginia Highlands to list 404 aquatic,
riparian, and wetland species, including
Boltonia montana (referred to by the
common names ‘‘Doll’s-daisy’’ and
‘‘doll’s daisy’’ in the petition; referred to
hereafter as Doll’s daisy), as endangered
or threatened species under the Act. On
September 27, 2011, we published in
the Federal Register (76 FR 59836) a 90day finding in which we announced
that the petition contained substantial
information indicating listing may be
warranted for the species. This
document constitutes our 12-month
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
78031
finding on the April 20, 2010, petition
to list Doll’s daisy under the Act.
Summary of Finding
Doll’s daisy is a perennial plant in the
Asteraceae family that is known from
Augusta County, Virginia; Sussex and
Warren Counties, New Jersey; and
Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, the
latter regarded as a historical
occurrence. The species occurs in
certain isolated sinkhole ponds that
have widely fluctuating water levels,
and its life history is adapted to these
variable habitat conditions. The species
currently occurs in 21 population sites
in New Jersey (5 are on land owned or
managed by the State, 6 are on private
property owned or managed by a
conservation organization, and the
remaining 10 populations are privately
owned) and 22 population sites in
Virginia (7 are on U.S. Forest Service
land, and the remaining 15 are on
private property).
Soil, water, sunlight, pollinator
services, and a suitable annual
temperature regime are interrelated
resource needs required by Dolly’s daisy
individuals and populations. At the
metapopulation scale, the species likely
requires some degree of habitat
connectivity to maintain viability;
however, there is significant uncertainty
regarding the degree of connectivity that
may be necessary between population
sites. We assume there is no natural
connectivity between the two extant
metapopulations in New Jersey and
Virginia.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the Doll’s daisy,
and we evaluated all relevant factors
under the five listing factors, including
any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these
stressors. The primary stressors affecting
the Doll’s daisy’s biological status
include habitat modification (as a result
of development, agriculture, off-road
vehicle use, altered surface hydrology,
and groundwater withdrawals) and
climate change. There are conservation
measures in place that benefit the
species. Our species status assessment
report for the Doll’s daisy evaluates
three plausible future scenarios for the
species. In our future condition
analysis, scenarios 1 and 3 predict
between 3 and 11 populations would
have lower resiliencies than the current
condition, with the potential under one
scenario that changes may result in the
extirpation of several low resiliency
populations, perhaps causing a loss of
redundancy. Under scenario 2, we
predict feasible conservation efforts
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
03DER1
78032
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 233 / Thursday, December 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
would improve the condition of 22
populations. Under all scenarios, the
species would maintain multiple
moderate or high resiliency populations
in the New Jersey and Virginia
metapopulations; therefore, the species’
representation is not predicted to
change from the current condition
(although we note that the historical
extirpation of the Pennsylvania
metapopulation may have reduced the
species’ representation).
Despite impacts from the primary
stressors, Doll’s daisy has maintained
resilient populations throughout its
range. Although we predict some
continued impacts from these stressors
in the future, we anticipate the species
will continue to maintain resilient
populations throughout the foreseeable
future. Therefore, we find that listing
the Doll’s daisy as an endangered
species or threatened species under the
Act is not warranted. A detailed
discussion of the basis for this finding
can be found in the Doll’s daisy species
assessment and other supporting
documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Puget Oregonian
Previous Federal Actions
On March 17, 2008, we received a
petition (dated March 13, 2008) from
CBD, Conservation Northwest, the
Environmental Protection Information
Center, the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands
Center, and Oregon Wild to list 32
species and subspecies of snails and
slugs (mollusks), including Puget
Oregonian (Cryptomastix devia), in the
Pacific Northwest as endangered or
threatened species under the Act. On
October 5, 2011, we published in the
Federal Register (76 FR 61826) a 90-day
finding that the petition presented
substantial information indicating that
listing the Puget Oregonian under the
Act may be warranted. This document
constitutes our 12-month finding on the
March 13, 2008, petition to list the
Puget Oregonian under the Act.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Summary of Finding
The Puget Oregonian is a snail that
inhabits moist, conifer-forest habitats
that include some level of deciduous
tree community composition. The
species is most commonly located in
stands with bigleaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum) that occur along stream
and river terraces or other habitats with
a flat or gentle slope. Within that
landscape, the species’ habitat niche is
near or under bigleaf maple crowns and
in, or under, hardwood logs and other
woody material, leaf litter, moist talus,
and the lowest fronds of western
swordfern (Polystichum munitum). The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Dec 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
Puget Oregonian is found in the Cascade
Range and Puget Trough in Washington,
and south into the foothills of the Coast
Range and Willamette Valley, in
Oregon; the species is recognized as
extirpated from British Columbia,
Canada.
Most occurrence records for this
species come from the Cispus River in
Washington on the Gifford Pinchot
National Forest, resulting from surveys
conducted under the Northwest Forest
Plan in areas where U.S. Forest Service
projects were being considered. As a
result, much of the potential suitable
habitat for the Puget Oregonian remains
unsurveyed.
The primary stressors affecting the
Puget Oregonian include the effects of
past, current, and future habitat loss,
modification, and fragmentation from
forest management, land conversion to
agriculture and development, big leaf
maple dieback disease, and wildfire.
However, the species has been found in
areas that had been previously impacted
by some of these stressors (forest
practices, bigleaf maple dieback disease
and wildfire). The best available data
provide no information on whether
there is a declining or increasing
population trend and limited
information on whether the range of the
species has contracted or expanded in
the last century. Ten of the 15 habitat
units assessed appear to have high
resilience, containing multiple
contemporary validated records of this
species as well as a high percentage of
suitable habitat within the unit and in
the immediate and surrounding area.
Although the species does not appear to
be particularly abundant across its
range, and much uncertainty regarding
presence of the species in suitable but
unsurveyed portions of the range, the
snail’s distribution across a large area
(redundancy), with ten highly resilient
populations in four different sub-basins
(representation), indicates the species is
likely to withstand catastrophic events
in one or more sub-basin.
The resources that the Puget
Oregonian needs are likely to diminish
in quantity and quality over time with
future increases in environmental
stressors including the effects of climate
change, human population growth in
the Pacific Northwest, forest
management, and bigleaf maple dieback
disease. If suitable habitat diminishes as
expected, we would anticipate a
corresponding decline in the resiliency,
redundancy, and representation of the
species. However, the Puget Oregonian’s
current distribution in at least 15 sites
across at least four different sub-basins
will support its ability to maintain
resiliency into the mid-21st century.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Furthermore, the species’ ability to take
refuge in small areas (microhabitat)
could add to the future resiliency of
populations.
We know that features of the species’
habitat may change in the future, and
we can project the scope and magnitude
of some of those environmental changes.
However, our incomplete understanding
of how the species may respond to
changes in its environment over time
creates a wide range of possibilities for
the future condition of the 15 analytic
units we assessed. The best available
information does not indicate that the
future magnitude and scope of potential
environmental stressors would be at a
level that would cause the species to be
in danger of extinction in the
foreseeable future.
Therefore, we find that listing the
Puget Oregonian as an endangered
species or threatened species under the
Act is not warranted. A detailed
discussion of the basis for this finding
can be found in the Puget Oregonian
species status assessment and other
supporting documents (see ADDRESSES,
above).
Rocky Mountain Monkeyflower
Previous Federal Actions
On October 4, 2011, we received a
petition from WildEarth Guardians
requesting, in part, that we list the
Rocky Mountain monkeyflower as an
endangered or threatened species under
the Act. On August 29, 2012, we
published in the Federal Register (77
FR 52293) a 90-day finding that the
petition presented substantial
information indicating that listing the
Rocky Mountain monkeyflower under
the Act may be warranted. This
document constitutes our 12-month
finding on the September 30, 2011,
petition to list the Rocky Mountain
monkeyflower under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The Rocky Mountain monkeyflower,
also known as the budding
monkeyflower, is a small, narrow
endemic plant found in north-central
Colorado. Uniquely, this plant exhibits
an asexual reproduction strategy not
seen within the Mimulus genus or in
any other Holarctic species; the plant
produces propagules which contain
‘‘bulbils,’’ which have all of the
components needed to develop into a
new plant, including a shoot axis and
rudimentary leaves and roots. The
Rocky Mountain monkeyflower
occupies approximately 60 acres (24.28
hectares) on State or Federal lands
managed by the U.S. Forest Service, the
National Park Service, and Colorado
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
03DER1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 233 / Thursday, December 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Parks and Wildlife in Boulder, Clear
Creek, Grand, Jefferson, and Larimer
Counties in Colorado. Currently, we
know of 24 occurrences of the Rocky
Mountain monkeyflower that constitute
19 populations; surveyors have
observed over 14 million ramets (ramets
are individuals that result from asexual
reproduction and thus may be
genetically identical).
The Rocky Mountain monkeyflower
inhabits montane to subalpine habitats
at elevations of 2,400 to 3,400 meters
(7,874 to 11,154 feet) and is found under
overhangs of south-facing cliffs or
boulders. Little information exists about
the ecological factors that affect growth
and establishment of the Rocky
Mountain monkeyflower in the wild.
The survival of propagules is strongly
influenced by moisture, temperature,
and substrate type. A number of
patterns are apparent in the few
available studies on habitat parameters;
all of the previous studies and species
descriptions suggest that periods of very
moist or saturated soil are important,
but it appears that too much water can
be problematic for this species. The
optimal hydrological conditions are
sites that are periodically saturated or,
at most, consistently moist with no long
periods of standing water. Similarly,
successful sites have very shallow soil,
typically fewer than two centimeters
deep.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the Rocky
Mountain monkeyflower, and we
evaluated all relevant stressors under
the five listing factors, including any
regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these
stressors. We identified climate change
as the primary stressor affecting the
Rocky Mountain monkeyflower’s
biological status. Currently, the Rocky
Mountain monkeyflower has multiple,
resilient populations distributed across
its range, encompassing various
ecological conditions and some genetic
variation. While the Rocky Mountain
monkeyflower is a narrow endemic
plant with low population sizes and a
limited range, this limitation does not
seem to be currently compromising the
species’ resiliency, redundancy, and
representation, given the relatively large
numbers of ramets in multiple
populations, the low risk of inbreeding
depression due to the plant’s asexual
reproduction, good or moderate
hydrological conditions in most
populations, and relatively high levels
of genetic diversity for an asexual
species. The species is only known to
occur on Federal and State public lands,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Dec 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
which minimizes many threats such
that there are no stressors currently
providing species-level impacts. In the
future, while we may lose some small
Rocky Mountain monkeyflower
populations, we project that each
analysis unit will likely remain
occupied. Moreover, in all projected
future scenarios, the three populations
containing over 90 percent of
monkeyflower ramets will be in good or
moderate condition. Furthermore, the
plant’s asexual reproduction strategy
confers, and likely would continue to
confer, additional resiliency because
this less energy-intensive method of
reproduction allows the species to
reproduce in relatively harsh
conditions. Thus, based on our analysis,
we anticipate that the Rocky Mountain
monkeyflower will continue to have
multiple, resilient populations
distributed across its narrow range,
providing for limited but sufficient
redundancy and representation
necessary to withstand catastrophic
events and adapt to environmental
change into the future.
Therefore, we find that listing the
Rocky Mountain monkeyflower as an
endangered species or threatened
species under the Act is not warranted.
A detailed discussion of the basis for
this finding can be found in the Rocky
Mountain monkeyflower species
assessment and other supporting
documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Southern White-Tailed Ptarmigan
Previous Federal Actions
On August 24, 2010, we received a
petition from CBD requesting that we
list either the U.S. population or the
Rocky Mountain population of the
white-tailed ptarmigan as threatened or
endangered distinct population
segments (DPSs) and that we designate
critical habitat. Following our
correspondence with the petitioner
regarding the accepted taxonomy of the
white-tailed ptarmigan and our DPS
policy, the petitioner revised the
petition on September 1, 2011. The
revised petition requested that we list
the southern white-tailed ptarmigan (L.
l. altipetens) and the Mt. Rainier whitetailed ptarmigan (L. l. rainierensis) as
threatened subspecies. On June 5, 2012,
we published in the Federal Register
(77 FR 33143) a 90-day finding that the
petition presented substantial
information that listing may be
warranted for the southern white-tailed
ptarmigan and the Mt. Rainier whitetailed ptarmigan. This document
constitutes the 12-month finding on the
September 1, 2011, petition to list the
southern white-tailed ptarmigan under
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
78033
the Act. We will address our finding for
the Mt. Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan
in a future determination.
Summary of Finding
The southern white-tailed ptarmigan
is a small bird that lives in highelevation, alpine ecosystems in
Colorado, northern New Mexico, and
historically in the Snowy Range of
southern Wyoming. Alpine ecosystems
are characterized by high winds, cold
temperatures, short growing seasons,
low atmospheric oxygen concentrations,
and intense solar radiation. The
southern white-tailed ptarmigan is one
of five subspecies of white-tailed
ptarmigan in the Phasianidae family,
subfamily Tetraoninae, which includes
the grouse, or ground-feeding game
birds. So named for its perpetually
white tail feathers, the southern whitetailed ptarmigan changes its plumage
seasonally to match the coloration and
patterns of its alpine habitats, from
white in winter to brown in the
summer, effectively camouflaging the
birds against snow and alpine rocks and
vegetation. In addition to cryptic
coloration, the southern white-tailed
ptarmigan displays other adaptations to
the temperature, precipitation, wind,
and snow cover extremes of its alpine
habitats. For example, heavily feathered
feet support the southern white-tailed
ptarmigan like snowshoes as they walk
across the snow, and the subspecies
feeds almost exclusively on willow buds
during the winter when other food
sources are scarce.
Nearly all suitable habitat for the
southern-white tailed ptarmigan occurs
on lands managed by Federal land
management agencies, with over 85
percent managed by the U.S. Forest
Service, over 5 percent managed by the
National Park Service, and 4.5 percent
managed by the Bureau of Land
Management. Approximately 6 percent
of suitable habitat is located on
privately owned land. The distribution
of southern white-tailed ptarmigan is
largely unchanged from historical levels
in Colorado and New Mexico, but a lack
of recent observations indicates that the
subspecies is presumed extirpated from
the Snowy Range in southern Wyoming.
We determined that individual
southern white-tailed ptarmigan have
specific habitat needs to breed, feed,
and shelter, including suitable winter
snow conditions, available late-lying
snowfields, summer precipitation and
monsoonal moisture, brood-rearing
habitat, and willows. We also
determined that populations of southern
white-tailed ptarmigan need external
recruitment of immigrants, breeding
dispersal, adult female survival, and
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
03DER1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
78034
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 233 / Thursday, December 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
population growth in order to be
resilient. Demographic connectivity
between populations is critical for
resiliency, as it allows for genetic
exchange, dispersal, and external
recruitment. The subspecies needs a
sufficient number and distribution of
resilient populations to withstand the
annual variation in its environment,
catastrophes, and novel biological and
physical changes in its environment.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the southern whitetailed ptarmigan, and we evaluated all
relevant factors under the five listing
factors, including any regulatory
mechanisms and conservation measures
addressing these stressors. Potential
stressors to the southern white-tailed
ptarmigan include predation, mining
and related poisoning due to toxic
concentrations of trace metals, hunting,
recreation, livestock and native ungulate
grazing, and the effects of global climate
change. Through our analysis, we found
that only climate change may affect
southern white-tailed ptarmigan
populations due to increases in
minimum and maximum temperatures;
changes in snow quantity, quality,
extent, and duration; shifts in plant
phenology; advancement of treeline,
and expansion of willow into alpine
areas; and changes in the amount and
timing of seasonal precipitation.
Although the other stressors may affect
individuals or local areas, they do not
affect resiliency, redundancy, or
representation, alone or cumulatively,
currently or into the future for the
southern white-tailed ptarmigan.
Currently, 14 out of 19 analytical
units (a scale of analysis similar to
populations) have high resiliency, 3
have medium resiliency, 1 in New
Mexico has very low resiliency, and the
Snowy Range analytical unit in
Wyoming is presumed extirpated. Other
than local declines in New Mexico and
the presumed extirpation in the Snowy
Range, the southern white-tailed
ptarmigan currently occupies nearly all
of its historical range, and the
subspecies has sufficient resiliency,
redundancy, and representation to
withstand stochastic and catastrophic
events and to adapt to environmental
changes. Therefore, given the current
levels of resiliency distributed across
Colorado, the lack of significant
stressors, and the life-history
characteristics of the subspecies that
make it uniquely adapted to the
environmental extremes of its alpine
habitats, we conclude that the current
risk of extinction is low. In the future,
we project reductions in resiliency, due
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Dec 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
to changes in climate, with a minor
reduction in redundancy and
representation if the analytical unit in
New Mexico declines from very low
resiliency to an extirpated condition.
However, at least 17 resilient analytical
units are projected to remain distributed
across Colorado in the future, so the
subspecies maintains enough resiliency,
redundancy, and representation to
withstand stochastic and catastrophic
events and to adapt to changing
conditions. Therefore, we consider the
future risk of extinction to also be low.
We find that listing the southern
white-tailed ptarmigan as an
endangered subspecies or a threatened
subspecies under the Act is not
warranted. A detailed discussion of the
basis for this finding can be found in the
southern white-tailed ptarmigan species
assessment and other supporting
documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Tidewater Amphipod
Previous Federal Actions
We identified the tidewater amphipod
as a Category 2 candidate species for
listing in a May 22, 1984, notice of
review (49 FR 21664). Category 2
candidate species were taxa for which
the Service had information indicating
that proposing to list the species as
endangered or threatened was possibly
appropriate, but for which conclusive
data on biological vulnerability and
threats were not at that time available to
support proposed rules. The tidewater
amphipod remained designated as a
Category 2 candidate species in
subsequent candidate notices of review
(54 FR 554, January 6, 1989; 56 FR
58804, November 21, 1991; 59 FR
58982, November 15, 1994). In the
February 28, 1996, notice (61 FR 7596),
we discontinued the designation of
Category 2 species as candidates, which
removed the tidewater amphipod from
our candidate list.
On April 20, 2010, we received a
petition from CBD, Alabama Rivers
Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood
Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network,
Tennessee Forests Council, and West
Virginia Highlands to list 404 aquatic,
riparian, and wetland species, including
the tidewater amphipod, as endangered
or threatened species under the Act. On
September 27, 2011, we published in
the Federal Register (76 FR 59836) a 90day finding in which we announced
that the petition contained substantial
information indicating listing may be
warranted for the species. This
document constitutes our 12-month
finding on the April 20, 2010, petition
to list the tidewater amphipod under the
Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Summary of Finding
The tidewater amphipod is a small,
subterranean, shallow groundwater
crustacean. Compared to similar
amphipods, the tidewater amphipod is
relatively large, with males reaching
lengths of 9.7 millimeters (mm) (0.38
inches (in)) and females 8.2 mm (0.32
in). The species’ entire known current
distribution occurs within five counties
in Maryland and seven counties in
Virginia spanning a distance of 180
miles (289 kilometers) of the Coastal
Plain physiographic region.
Contemporary collections of tidewater
amphipods have typically been made
during the winter and spring months
when individuals can be found in
seepage springs, tile drains, and shallow
wells.
Specific diet, water quality and
quantity tolerances, and behavioral and
reproductive traits of tidewater
amphipod are unknown. However,
based on the general principles of
conservation biology, information about
other groundwater amphipod species,
and local information from the areas
where tidewater amphipods have been
observed, we infer that individuals need
shallow water habitats with sufficient
space to breed and shelter; sufficient
water quality for breeding and
sheltering; forest cover, which provides
a buffer for water quality and quantity,
and provides food; and a clay or
confining layer or pore space to help
support feeding and sheltering when
water quantities are low.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the tidewater
amphipod, and we evaluated all
relevant factors under the five listing
factors, including any regulatory
mechanisms and conservation measures
addressing these stressors. The primary
stressors affecting the tidewater
amphipod’s biological status include
reduced groundwater quality and
quantity, and we identified
development (i.e., impervious surfaces)
as a primary source of changes to both.
In response to degraded water quality,
we conclude there could be decreased
fitness and declines in the tidewater
amphipod’s resiliency caused by
changes in biodiversity within its
habitats. In response to the greater threat
of reduced water quantity, there is
evidence that the tidewater amphipod
can burrow deeper underground for
periods of time and reemerge when
sufficient water levels return. While
representation is assumed to have
decreased when compared to historical
conditions, it appears the species has
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
03DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 233 / Thursday, December 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
sustained multiple populations across
much of its historical range and through
multiple stochastic events such as
drought. Considering the future
scenarios, the majority of populations
do not appear to be at high risk of
development, and the impact to the
species caused by impervious surfaces
is not projected to increase
substantially. Thus, the primary threats
appear to have low imminence and
magnitude such that they are not
providing species-level impacts to the
tidewater amphipod. We evaluated
numerous other factors (e.g., climate
change, effects of small population size,
collection, predation, disease,
recreation, forest management, and
other conservation efforts) and
determined that they had little to no
measurable impact on the species. The
species status assessment report
describes many uncertainties in the
species’ occurrence, populations, and
response to threats, but, considering the
available data, the risk of extinction is
low.
Therefore, we find that listing the
tidewater amphipod as an endangered
species or threatened species under the
Act is not warranted. A detailed
discussion of the basis for this finding
can be found in the tidewater amphipod
species assessment and other supporting
documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Tufted Puffin
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Previous Federal Actions
On February 14, 2014, we received a
petition from the Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) to list the
contiguous U.S. DPS of tufted puffin as
an endangered or threatened species
under the Act. Alternatively, the NRDC
stated that we should list the tufted
puffin species (i.e., the entire
population(s) across its known range)
and apply this alternative if we found
the contiguous U.S. population of the
species did not meet our DPS policy. On
September 18, 2015, we published in
the Federal Register (80 FR 56423) a 90day finding in which we announced
that the petition contained substantial
information indicating listing may be
warranted for the contiguous U.S. DPS
of tufted puffin in the States of
Washington, Oregon, and California.
The 90-day finding neglected to make a
determination specific to the NRDC’s
alternative listing request. This
document constitutes our 12-month
finding on the February 14, 2014,
petition to list the tufted puffin
(addressing both petitioned entities)
under the Act.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Dec 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
Summary of Finding
The tufted puffin is a widely
distributed pelagic seabird found in the
North Pacific Ocean. The tufted puffin
is a burrow-nester that commonly nests
colonially on offshore islands. Tufted
puffins nest along the coasts of
California, Oregon, Washington, and
Alaska in the United States, and in
Canada (British Columbia), Russia, and
Japan. The majority of tufted puffins (82
percent) nest in North America,
primarily Alaska; Russia has the second
largest concentration of nesting tufted
puffins (18 percent). Colony size is
variable, ranging from just a few birds
to large colonies of greater than 100,000
tufted puffins.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the tufted puffin,
and we evaluated all relevant factors
under the five listing factors, including
any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these
stressors. We determined that the most
significant threats impacting the tufted
puffin and its habitat are changing
climate conditions, oil spills, fisheries
bycatch, mammalian and avian
predators, nonnative plants and
animals, and human disturbance. The
most significant of these threats to
potentially impact the resource needs of
tufted puffins are climate change and oil
spills. Currently, the best available
information for tufted puffins indicates
adequate redundancy and
representation across the species’ range,
including robust populations across the
majority of its range. The species
continues to occur throughout its
historical range. While the tufted
puffin’s range will likely continue to
contract in the south due to climate
change, models predict the species will
continue to remain widely distributed
throughout most of its historical range.
The tufted puffin is expected to
maintain resilient colonies throughout a
large proportion of its range, including
likely continued representation across
most of its range.
Therefore, we find that listing the
contiguous U.S. DPS of tufted puffin or
the tufted puffin species as endangered
or threatened is not warranted. A
detailed discussion of the basis for this
finding can be found in the tufted puffin
species assessment and other supporting
documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Hamlin Valley Pyrg, Longitudinal Gland
Pyrg, Sub-Globose Snake Pyrg
Previous Federal Actions
On July 30, 2007, we received a
petition (dated July 24, 2007) from
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
78035
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. This petition included the
Hamlin Valley pyrg, longitudinal gland
pyrg, and sub-globose snake pyrg. On
February 27, 2009, we received another
petition dated February 17, 2009, from
the CBD, Tierra Curry, Noah Greenwald,
Dr. James Deacon, Don Duff, and the
Freshwater Mollusk Conservation
Society, requesting that we list 42
species of Great Basin springsnails in
Nevada, Utah, and California, including
the Hamlin Valley pyrg, longitudinal
gland pyrg, and sub-globose snake pyrg,
as endangered or threatened, and
designating critical habitat under the
Act. On August 18, 2009, we published
in the Federal Register (74 FR 41649) a
90-day finding in which we announced
that the petitions contained substantial
information indicating listing these
three species may be warranted. This
document constitutes the 12-month
finding on the July 30, 2007, and
February 17, 2009, petitions to list the
Hamlin Valley pyrg, longitudinal gland
pyrg, and sub-globose snake pyrg under
the Act.
Summary of Finding
The three springsnail species are in
the genus Pyrgulopsis of the
Hydrobiidae family. In general, the three
species are morphologically similar
with hardened shells and soft anatomy,
and they are differentiated based on
subtle morphological characteristics.
The Hamlin Valley pyrg occurs only in
the White Rock Cabin Springs province
in Hamlin Valley, straddling the Utah
and Nevada State line. The Utah portion
of the spring province is all on private
land, while the Nevada portion is
entirely within the White Rock Range
Wilderness Area managed by the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM). The
longitudinal gland pyrg occurs on
private land at three springs or spring
provinces (Big Springs province,
Stateline Springs province, and Clay
Spring) in the Snake Valley area of
White Pine County, Nevada, and
Millard County, Utah. The sub-globose
snake pyrg occurs only in Utah at Gandy
Warm Springs in Snake Valley,
contained entirely within the Gandy
Mountain Caves Area of Critical
Environmental Concern managed by the
BLM.
All three springsnails are very small
in size, only a few millimeters in length
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
03DER1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
78036
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 233 / Thursday, December 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
and width, and have limited ability or
tendency to move. These species are
herbivores or detritivores that primarily
graze on the periphyton (freshwater
organisms attached or clinging to plants)
of exposed surfaces of aquatic plants
and substrates in the small springs they
inhabit. We determined the following
spring conditions are most critical in
influencing the physical and biological
needs of springsnails: Sufficient water
quality, adequate substrate and
vegetation, free-flowing water, and
adequate spring discharge. When each
of these physical and biological needs is
present and functioning within a spring,
stable populations of springsnails are
expected.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the springsnails,
and we evaluated all relevant factors
under the five listing factors, including
any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these
stressors. Historically and through the
present, the three springsnail species
and their habitats were impacted to
varying degrees by predation and
competition, vegetation and soil
disturbance, water pollution, spring
modification, and groundwater
pumping. However, we determined the
most important stressors likely to
impact future conditions of the three
species include groundwater pumping
and withdrawals, altered precipitation
and temperature, and, in the case of the
sub-globose snake pyrg, nonnative fish
competition.
The Hamlin Valley pyrg occurs in one
population with 10 of 11 occupied
springbrooks in high overall resiliency
condition and one springbrook in
moderate condition; resiliency is high in
all but one springbrook due to high
abundance despite some environmental
stressors. Redundancy and
representation are limited due to the
species’ narrow range and its single
population; however, this is likely
similar to historical conditions.
Therefore, we conclude that the current
risk of extinction is low. In the future,
we project the Hamlin Valley pyrg
population to have high resiliency due
to predicted high abundance and
protection of the water source from
pumping due to wilderness designation
of groundwater areas upslope of the
spring province. Redundancy and
representation are projected to continue
to be limited due to the species’ narrow
range and only one population, but this
is likely similar to historical conditions
for this narrow endemic species. In the
future, we expect the species’ habitat to
continue to provide for the needs of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Dec 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
sufficient water quality, adequate
substrate and vegetation, free-flowing
water, and adequate spring discharge.
Additionally, we consider the future
risk of catastrophic or stochastic events
affecting this species or its habitat to be
low.
The longitudinal gland pyrg currently
occurs in three locations with 13
occupied springbrooks in high overall
resiliency condition, 5 springbrooks in
moderate condition, and only 1
springbrook in low condition.
Resiliency is high in most springbrooks
due to high abundance despite some
environmental stressors. Competition
and predation, spring modification, and
vegetation and soil disturbance from
grazing and roads are the only historical
and current stressors. Because most
populations exhibit high resilience
despite the co-occurrence of stressors,
we concluded that the stressors have a
low to moderate effect on the
longitudinal gland pyrg. Current
abundance, range, and effects of
stressors make it unlikely there would
be a loss in redundancy or
representation, and we expect the
redundancy and representation to be
adequate. Therefore, we conclude that
the current risk of extinction is low. In
the future, we project that the
longitudinal gland pyrg will continue to
have populations with high resiliency
due to predicted high abundance
despite the future effects of
environmental stressors and because
groundwater pumping is unlikely to
occur in the foreseeable future.
Redundancy and representation are
projected to continue to be adequate in
the future with three occupied spring
systems with multiple occupied
springbrooks. In the future, we expect
the species’ habitat to continue to
provide for the needs of sufficient water
quality, adequate substrate and
vegetation, free-flowing water, and
adequate spring discharge. Additionally,
we consider the future risk of
catastrophic or stochastic events
affecting this species or its habitat to be
low.
The sub-globose snake pyrg currently
occurs in one spring system with
multiple springbrooks in the upper
reaches of the spring system in
moderate resiliency condition. The
spring system is a warm water system
with temperatures greater than 25
degrees Celsius (77 degrees Fahrenheit).
The population appears to be resilient to
environmental stressors; however,
numbers of snails are down overall due
to the recent invasion of armored catfish
into the lower reaches of the system,
which is the only current threat to the
species. The upper reaches of the
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
system still have high numbers of snails
and a low probability of armored catfish
invasion. The BLM, Utah Division of
Wildlife Resources, and the Service
entered into the Conservation
Agreement and Strategy for the Subglobose Snake Pyrg (Agreement) in
2020. We evaluated the certainty that
the conservation measures in the
Agreement will be implemented and
effective in our Policy for the Evaluation
of Conservation Efforts (PECE) analysis.
Using the criteria specified in PECE (68
FR 15100, March 28. 2003), we have
determined that all of the PECE criteria
have been satisfied. We find that the
2020 CAS has a high level of certainty
for future implementation and certainty
of the effectiveness. Nonnative fish
removal efforts under the strategy have
already begun to reduce armored catfish
numbers in Gandy Warm Springs.
Current redundancy and representation
are limited due to the narrow range of
the species and its single population,
but this is likely similar to historical
conditions. Therefore, we conclude that
the current risk of extinction is low. Our
assessment of the future status of this
species takes into consideration the
Agreement, which includes the
continuation of conservation actions to
eliminate nonnative fish from Gandy
Warm Springs and prevent future
invasion, thereby addressing this threat
to the species. Future resiliency is
expected to increase due to the removal
of nonnative fish in accordance with the
Agreement, the fact that groundwater
pumping is unlikely, and the species’
past ability to sustain itself despite other
environmental stressors. Redundancy
and representation are projected to
continue to be limited in the future due
to the species’ narrow range and its
single population, but this is likely
similar to historical conditions. In the
future, we expect the species’ habitat to
continue to provide for the needs of
sufficient water quality, adequate
substrate and vegetation, free-flowing
water, and adequate spring discharge.
Additionally, we consider the future
risk of catastrophic or stochastic events
affecting the sub-globose snake pyrg or
its habitat to be low.
Therefore, we find that listing the
Hamlin Valley pyrg, longitudinal gland
pyrg, and sub-globose snake pyrg as
endangered species or threatened
species under the Act is not warranted.
A detailed discussion of the basis for
this finding can be found in the Hamlin
Valley pyrg, longitudinal gland pyrg,
and sub-globose snake pyrg species
assessment and other supporting
documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
03DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 233 / Thursday, December 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Johnson Springs Wetland Complex
Population of Relict Dace
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Previous Federal Actions
On June 27, 2014, we received a
petition from Forest Service Employees
for Environmental Ethics, requesting
that the Johnson Springs Wetland
Complex Population (JSWC) population
of relict dace be listed as an endangered
DPS under the Act. On April 10, 2015,
we published a 90-day finding (80 FR
19259) that the petition presented
substantial information indicating that
listing the JSWC population of relict
dace may be warranted and that we
were initiating a status review. This
document constitutes our 12-month
finding on the June 27, 2014 petition to
list the JSWC population of relict dace
under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The relict dace is a small fish in the
Cyprinidae family that was first
described in 1972 (Hubbs and Miller
1972, pp. 101–102). It is found in spring
systems in five isolated valleys in the
northeastern corner of Nevada; these
valleys are estimated to have been
separated for hundreds of thousands of
years. Four of these valleys contain
native populations, including the JSWC,
and one includes only introduced
populations.
Waterbodies occupied by the species
include springs, spring pools, and
spring outflows; wetlands; natural and
human-modified channels; ditches;
ephemeral reservoirs; and creeks. The
relict dace feeds on aquatic
invertebrates, including mayfly and
damselfly nymphs; they consume
relatively little plant material
(Carmichael 1983, p. 88). Little is
known about relict dace breeding or
behavior; however, the species is
considered secretive (NDOW 2007, p. 4).
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding whether the JSWC
population of relict dace qualifies as a
DPS. Based on our thorough review, we
find that the JSWC population of relict
dace meets our criteria for discreteness
under our February 7, 1996 DPS policy
(61 FR 4722); however, it does not meet
the criteria for significance based on the
four criteria outlined in the DPS policy.
The JSWC population of relict dace does
not occur in a unique or unusual setting
for relict dace, does not show evidence
that loss of the discrete population
segment would result in a significant
gap in the range of relict dace, and does
not represent the only surviving native
occurrence of relict dace. While genetic
discontinuity demonstrates the JSWC
population segment is markedly
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Dec 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
separate from other relict dace
populations, we find no evidence that
these measures of genetic divergence
result in marked differences in the
JSWC population segment’s genetic
characteristics. Therefore, the JSWC
relict dace population is not a listable
entity under the Act. Because the JSWC
population of relict dace is not a listable
entity, we did not perform a status
assessment under the five factors as
required under section 4(a) of the Act.
This finding constitutes our completion
of our review of the petitioned action.
A detailed discussion of the basis for
this finding can be found in the JSWC
population of relict dace species
assessment and other supporting
documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Clear Lake Hitch
Previous Federal Actions
We received a petition from the
Center for Biological Diversity on
September 25, 2012 (CBD 2012, entire),
to list the Clear Lake hitch as threatened
or endangered under the Act. The
Service issued a 90-day finding on April
10, 2015 (80 FR 19259), stating the
petition presented substantial
information that listing the Clear Lake
hitch may be warranted and that we
were initiating a status review. This
document constitutes the 12-month
finding on the September 25, 2012,
petition to list the Clear Lake hitch.
Summary of Finding
The Clear Lake hitch (hitch) (Lavinia
exilicauda chi) is a large cyprinid
(freshwater minnow) that is endemic to
the Clear Lake watershed in Lake
County, California. Historically, the
Clear Lake hitch occurred in several
lakes and ponds found throughout the
Clear Lake watershed, including: Clear
Lake, Thurston Lake, Upper Blue Lake,
Lower Blue Lake, and Lampson Pond.
During the spring, Clear Lake hitch were
also found in the numerous tributaries
to these larger water bodies, including:
Kelsey, Scott, Middle, Adobe, Seigler
Canyon, Manning, Cole, Morrison, and
Schindler Creeks. All of the
waterbodies, listed above, with the
exception of Thurston Lake, were
hydrologically connected to each other
in the past, and it appears that Thurston
Lake and its tributary, Thurston Creek,
have always been isolated from the
other waterways. Local opinion is that
hitch were introduced into Thurston
Lake by a local resident less than 50
years ago. The Clear Lake hitch is
restricted to the Clear Lake watershed in
Lake County, California, in the central
Coast Range Mountains. Currently, the
hitch is thought to be extirpated from
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
78037
the Blue Lakes, but still occurs in Clear
and Thurston Lakes throughout the
year. In the spring, reproductive adults
migrate into tributary streams to spawn
and then migrate back to the lakes after
spawning. It is unclear whether
Lampson Pond still exists; therefore, the
status of the Clear Lake hitch in
Lampson Pond is unknown.
For most of the year, Clear Lake hitch
are only found within their lacustrine
(lake) environment. However, between
February and May, a portion of the
overall reproductive population begins
to migrate into the surrounding
tributaries to spawn. Spawning
activities include one to five males
pursuing a gravid female to fertilize her
freshly extruded eggs, which are
deposited on fine to medium sized
gravel within the tributary stream.
Fertilized eggs develop and hatch
within 7 to 10 days, fry are freeswimming after another 7 to 10 days,
and young migrate to the lake at about
a month old before the streams dry up.
Juvenile hitch are found within the
nearshore habitat of the lake where they
depend on submerged aquatic
vegetation for cover and prey. Juvenile
hitch move from the nearshore portion
of the lake into open water in early-to
late-fall. There is evidence that Clear
Lake hitch do not require tributary
streams with gravel to spawn, but can
also spawn successfully in different
portions of the lake (i.e., along the shore,
the mouths of tributaries, and Rodman
Slough) that lack a gravel substrate.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the Clear Lake
hitch, and we evaluated all relevant
factors under the five listing factors,
including any regulatory mechanisms
and conservation measures addressing
these stressors. The primary stressors
affecting the Clear Lake hitch’s
biological status include habitat
degradation, predation and competition,
drought and climate change. Based on
our examination of the best available
scientific information, we have
determined that habitat degradation,
predation and competition, drought and
climate change are not likely to
adversely affect the overall viability of
the Clear Lake hitch in a biologically
meaningful way to such an extent that
the species is in danger of extinction or
likely to become so in the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range for the following
reasons: (1) The Clear Lake hitch has a
long life span, (2) the Clear Lake hitch
are highly fecund, and (3) the Clear Lake
hitch has shown the ability to use
different spawning strategies, which
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
03DER1
78038
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 233 / Thursday, December 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
demonstrates its behavioral flexibility to
variable environmental conditions.
Additionally, regulatory mechanisms
such as the California Endangered
Species Act (CESA) and local
ordinances are currently acting to
ameliorate the severity of some existing
threats, such as the take of individuals,
degradation of tributary streams, and
loss of wetland habitat surrounding
Clear Lake. Furthermore, the SSA
presented three plausible future
scenarios, which included various states
of potential future conditions for the
species. Our analysis of these scenarios
indicates that the Clear Lake hitch will
maintain its current resiliency,
representation, or redundancy, or
undergo only a slight decrease in
condition into the foreseeable future.
Even under a projection of a slight
decrease in future condition, the Clear
Lake hitch was not projected to be in
danger of extinction in the next 50
years.
Therefore, we find that listing the
Clear Lake hitch as an endangered or
threatened species under the Act is not
warranted at this time. A detailed
discussion of the basis for this finding
can be found in the Clear Lake hitch
species assessment form and other
supporting documents (see ADDRESSES,
above).
New Information
We request that you submit any new
information concerning the taxonomy
of, biology of, ecology of, status of, or
stressors to the Doll’s daisy, Puget
Oregonian, Rocky Mountain
monkeyflower, southern white-tailed
ptarmigan, tidewater amphipod, tufted
puffin, Hamlin Valley pyrg, longitudinal
gland pyrg, sub-globose snake pyrg, the
Johnson Springs Wetland Complex
population of relict dace, or Clear Lake
hitch to the appropriate person, as
specified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, whenever it
becomes available. New information
will help us monitor these species and
make appropriate decisions about their
conservation and status. We encourage
local agencies and stakeholders to
continue cooperative monitoring and
conservation efforts.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
References Cited
A list of the references cited in this
petition finding is available on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov
in the appropriate docket provided
above in ADDRESSES and upon request
from the appropriate person, as
specified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Dec 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
Authors
The primary authors of this document
are the staff members of the Species
Assessment Team, Ecological Services
Program.
Authority
The authority for this action is section
4 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).
Aurelia Skipwith,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2020–26139 Filed 12–2–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 201125–0321]
RIN 0648–BJ59
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod in the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This final rule modifies
Federal permit conditions and imposes
participation requirements for certain
federally permitted vessels when fishing
for Pacific cod in state waters adjacent
to the exclusive economic zone of the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands during
the State of Alaska’s parallel Pacific cod
fishery. This action is necessary to
enhance Federal conservation,
management, and catch accounting
measures previously adopted by the
North Pacific Fishery Management
Council (Council) regarding license
limitation, sector allocations, and catch
reporting. This action is intended to
promote the goals and objectives of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, the
Fishery Management Plan for
Groundfish of the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands Management Area, and
other applicable law.
DATES: Effective January 4, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the
Categorical Exclusion and the
Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)
prepared for this action (referred to as
the ‘‘Analysis’’) are available from
https://www.regulations.gov or from the
NMFS Alaska Region website at https://
www/fisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kurt
Iverson, 907–586–7210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority for Action
NMFS manages the groundfish
fisheries in the U.S. exclusive economic
zone (EEZ) of the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands (BSAI) under the
Fishery Management Plan for
Groundfish of the BSAI Management
Area (FMP). The Council prepared, and
NMFS approved, the FMP under the
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and
implementing the FMP appear at 50
CFR part 679. General regulations that
pertain to U.S. fisheries appear at
subpart H of 50 CFR part 600.
NMFS published the proposed rule
for these regulatory amendments in the
Federal Register on September 18, 2020
(85 FR 58322). A summary of comments
on the proposed rule and NMFS’
responses are provided in the
Comments and Responses section of this
preamble.
Summary of This Action
In this rule, NMFS modifies Federal
permit conditions and imposes
participation requirements for certain
federally permitted vessels when fishing
for Pacific cod in State of Alaska waters
(state waters) adjacent to the Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Bering Sea
and Aleutian Islands (BSAI). The state
waters portion of the Pacific cod fishery
that runs concurrent with the Federal
Pacific cod fishery is commonly known
as the State’s parallel fishery.
Throughout this preamble, ‘‘state
waters’’ refers to the maritime waters
from 0 to 3 nautical miles off Alaska,
and ‘‘EEZ’’ and ‘‘Federal waters’’ are
used interchangeably and refer to the
maritime waters from 3 to 200 nautical
miles off Alaska. In addition, ‘‘parallel
fisheries’’ in this preamble refers to the
state waters Pacific cod parallel fisheries
in the State of Alaska Bering SeaAleutian Islands Area, which presently
is in the Dutch Harbor Subdistrict of the
Bering Sea and within the Aleutian
Islands Subdistrict of the Aleutian
Islands, respectively.
This rule prohibits (1) a hook-andline, pot, or trawl gear vessel named on
a Federal Fisheries Permit (FFP) or
License Limitation Program (LLP)
license from being used to catch and
retain BSAI Pacific cod in State of
Alaska (State) waters adjacent to the
BSAI during the State’s parallel Pacific
cod fishery unless the vessel is named
on an FFP and LLP license that have the
required endorsements; (2) a hook-and-
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
03DER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 233 (Thursday, December 3, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78029-78038]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26139]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Eleven Species Not
Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notification of findings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce
findings that eleven species are not warranted for listing as
endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act). After a thorough review of the best available
scientific and commercial information, we find that it is not warranted
at this time to list the Doll's daisy, Puget Oregonian, Rocky Mountain
monkeyflower, southern white-tailed ptarmigan, tidewater amphipod,
tufted puffin, Hamlin Valley pyrg, longitudinal gland pyrg, sub-globose
snake pyrg, the Johnson Springs Wetland Complex population of relict
dace, or Clear Lake hitch. However, we ask the public to submit to us
at any time any new information relevant to the status of any of the
species mentioned above or their habitats.
DATES: The findings in this document were made on December 3, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Detailed descriptions of the bases for these findings are
available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under the
following docket numbers:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Docket No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doll's daisy........................... FWS-R5-ES-2020-0066.
Puget Oregonian........................ FWS-R1-ES-2020-0067.
[[Page 78030]]
Rocky Mountain monkeyflower............ FWS-R6-ES-2012-0052.
Southern white-tailed ptarmigan........ FWS-R6-ES-2012-0023.
Tidewater amphipod..................... FWS-R5-ES-2020-0068.
Tufted puffin.......................... FWS-R7-ES-2020-0072.
Hamlin Valley pyrg..................... FWS-R6-ES-2020-0069.
Longitudinal gland pyrg................ FWS-R6-ES-2020-0070.
Sub-globose snake pyrg................. FWS-R6-ES-2020-0071.
Relict dace............................ FWS-R8-ES-2020-0113.
Clear Lake hitch....................... FWS-R8-ES-2020-0112.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supporting information used to prepare this finding is available by
contacting the appropriate person as specified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any new information, materials,
comments, or questions concerning this finding to the appropriate
person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Contact information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doll's daisy........................... Eric Schrading, Field
Supervisor, New Jersey Field
Office, (609) 382-5272.
Puget Oregonian........................ Brad Thompson, State
Supervisor, Washington Fish
and Wildlife Office, (360) 753-
9440.
Rocky Mountain monkeyflower............ Ann Timberman, Acting Field
Supervisor, Colorado
Ecological Services Field
Office, (970) 628-7181.
Southern white-tailed ptarmigan........ Ann Timberman, Acting Field
Supervisor, Colorado
Ecological Services Field
Office, (970) 628-7181.
Tidewater amphipod..................... Julie A. Slacum, Division
Chief, Strategic Resource
Conservation, Chesapeake Bay
Field Office, (410) 573-4595.
Tufted puffin.......................... Stewart Cogswell, Field
Supervisor, Anchorage Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Office,
(907) 271-2787.
Hamlin Valley pyrg, longitudinal gland Laura Romin, Deputy Field
pyrg, and sub-globose snake pyrg. Supervisor, Utah Ecological
Services Field Office, (801)
975-3330, ext. 142.
Relict dace............................ Mark Jackson, Field Supervisor,
Reno Fish and Wildlife Office,
(775) 861-6300.
Clear Lake hitch....................... Kim Turner, Acting Field
Supervisor, Sacramento Fish
and Wildlife Office, (916) 414-
6700.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please
call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we
are required to make a finding whether or not a petitioned action is
warranted within 12 months after receiving any petition for which we
have determined contains substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted
(``12-month finding''). We must make a finding that the petitioned
action is: (1) Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) warranted but
precluded. We must publish a notice of these 12-month findings in the
Federal Register.
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations at part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing
species from, or reclassifying species on the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists). The Act defines ``species'' as
any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct
population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which
interbreeds when mature. The Act defines ``endangered species'' as any
species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)), and ``threatened species'' as
any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range
(16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may
be determined to be an endangered species or a threatened species
because of 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.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself. However, the mere
identification of any threat(s) does not necessarily mean that the
species meets the statutory definition of an ``endangered species'' or
a ``threatened species.'' In determining whether a
[[Page 78031]]
species meets either definition, we must evaluate all identified
threats by considering the expected response by the species, and the
effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions that
will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and species
level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the species,
then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on the species
as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in
light of those actions and conditions that will have positive effects
on the species, such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or
conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether the species
meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened
species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis and describing
the expected effect on the species now and in the foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as the
Service can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the
species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the
foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable
predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means
sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the
prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to
depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and
other demographic factors.
In conducting our evaluation of the five factors provided in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether the Doll's daisy
(Boltonia montana), Puget Oregonian (Cryptomastix devia), Rocky
Mountain monkeyflower (Mimulus gemmiparus), southern white-tailed
ptarmigan (Lagopus leucura altipetens), tidewater amphipod (Stygobromus
indentatus), tufted puffin (Fratercula cirrhata), Hamlin Valley pyrg
(Pyrgulopsis hamlinensis), longitudinal gland pyrg (Pyrgulopsis
anguina), sub-globose snake pyrg (Pyrgulopsis saxatilis), and Clear
Lake hitch (Lavinia exilicauda chi) meet the definition of ``endangered
species'' or ``threatened species,'' we considered and thoroughly
evaluated the best scientific and commercial information available
regarding the past, present, and future stressors and threats. We
reviewed the petitions, information available in our files, and other
available published and unpublished information. Our evaluation may
include information from recognized experts; Federal, State, and tribal
governments; academic institutions; foreign governments; private
entities; and other members of the public.
The species assessment forms for the Doll's daisy, Puget Oregonian,
Rocky Mountain monkeyflower, southern white-tailed ptarmigan, tidewater
amphipod, tufted puffin, Hamlin Valley pyrg, longitudinal gland pyrg,
sub-globose snake pyrg, the Johnson Springs Wetland Complex population
of relict dace, and Clear Lake hitch contain more detailed biological
information, a thorough analysis of the listing factors, and an
explanation of why we determined that these species do not meet the
definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. This
supporting information can be found on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (see ADDRESSES,
above). The following are informational summaries for the findings in
this document.
Doll's Daisy
Previous Federal Actions
On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity (CBD), Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition,
Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council,
and West Virginia Highlands to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland
species, including Boltonia montana (referred to by the common names
``Doll's-daisy'' and ``doll's daisy'' in the petition; referred to
hereafter as Doll's daisy), as endangered or threatened species under
the Act. On September 27, 2011, we published in the Federal Register
(76 FR 59836) a 90-day finding in which we announced that the petition
contained substantial information indicating listing may be warranted
for the species. This document constitutes our 12-month finding on the
April 20, 2010, petition to list Doll's daisy under the Act.
Summary of Finding
Doll's daisy is a perennial plant in the Asteraceae family that is
known from Augusta County, Virginia; Sussex and Warren Counties, New
Jersey; and Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, the latter regarded as a
historical occurrence. The species occurs in certain isolated sinkhole
ponds that have widely fluctuating water levels, and its life history
is adapted to these variable habitat conditions. The species currently
occurs in 21 population sites in New Jersey (5 are on land owned or
managed by the State, 6 are on private property owned or managed by a
conservation organization, and the remaining 10 populations are
privately owned) and 22 population sites in Virginia (7 are on U.S.
Forest Service land, and the remaining 15 are on private property).
Soil, water, sunlight, pollinator services, and a suitable annual
temperature regime are interrelated resource needs required by Dolly's
daisy individuals and populations. At the metapopulation scale, the
species likely requires some degree of habitat connectivity to maintain
viability; however, there is significant uncertainty regarding the
degree of connectivity that may be necessary between population sites.
We assume there is no natural connectivity between the two extant
metapopulations in New Jersey and Virginia.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Doll's daisy, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the
five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressors
affecting the Doll's daisy's biological status include habitat
modification (as a result of development, agriculture, off-road vehicle
use, altered surface hydrology, and groundwater withdrawals) and
climate change. There are conservation measures in place that benefit
the species. Our species status assessment report for the Doll's daisy
evaluates three plausible future scenarios for the species. In our
future condition analysis, scenarios 1 and 3 predict between 3 and 11
populations would have lower resiliencies than the current condition,
with the potential under one scenario that changes may result in the
extirpation of several low resiliency populations, perhaps causing a
loss of redundancy. Under scenario 2, we predict feasible conservation
efforts
[[Page 78032]]
would improve the condition of 22 populations. Under all scenarios, the
species would maintain multiple moderate or high resiliency populations
in the New Jersey and Virginia metapopulations; therefore, the species'
representation is not predicted to change from the current condition
(although we note that the historical extirpation of the Pennsylvania
metapopulation may have reduced the species' representation).
Despite impacts from the primary stressors, Doll's daisy has
maintained resilient populations throughout its range. Although we
predict some continued impacts from these stressors in the future, we
anticipate the species will continue to maintain resilient populations
throughout the foreseeable future. Therefore, we find that listing the
Doll's daisy as an endangered species or threatened species under the
Act is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this
finding can be found in the Doll's daisy species assessment and other
supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Puget Oregonian
Previous Federal Actions
On March 17, 2008, we received a petition (dated March 13, 2008)
from CBD, Conservation Northwest, the Environmental Protection
Information Center, the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, and Oregon
Wild to list 32 species and subspecies of snails and slugs (mollusks),
including Puget Oregonian (Cryptomastix devia), in the Pacific
Northwest as endangered or threatened species under the Act. On October
5, 2011, we published in the Federal Register (76 FR 61826) a 90-day
finding that the petition presented substantial information indicating
that listing the Puget Oregonian under the Act may be warranted. This
document constitutes our 12-month finding on the March 13, 2008,
petition to list the Puget Oregonian under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The Puget Oregonian is a snail that inhabits moist, conifer-forest
habitats that include some level of deciduous tree community
composition. The species is most commonly located in stands with
bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) that occur along stream and river
terraces or other habitats with a flat or gentle slope. Within that
landscape, the species' habitat niche is near or under bigleaf maple
crowns and in, or under, hardwood logs and other woody material, leaf
litter, moist talus, and the lowest fronds of western swordfern
(Polystichum munitum). The Puget Oregonian is found in the Cascade
Range and Puget Trough in Washington, and south into the foothills of
the Coast Range and Willamette Valley, in Oregon; the species is
recognized as extirpated from British Columbia, Canada.
Most occurrence records for this species come from the Cispus River
in Washington on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, resulting from
surveys conducted under the Northwest Forest Plan in areas where U.S.
Forest Service projects were being considered. As a result, much of the
potential suitable habitat for the Puget Oregonian remains unsurveyed.
The primary stressors affecting the Puget Oregonian include the
effects of past, current, and future habitat loss, modification, and
fragmentation from forest management, land conversion to agriculture
and development, big leaf maple dieback disease, and wildfire. However,
the species has been found in areas that had been previously impacted
by some of these stressors (forest practices, bigleaf maple dieback
disease and wildfire). The best available data provide no information
on whether there is a declining or increasing population trend and
limited information on whether the range of the species has contracted
or expanded in the last century. Ten of the 15 habitat units assessed
appear to have high resilience, containing multiple contemporary
validated records of this species as well as a high percentage of
suitable habitat within the unit and in the immediate and surrounding
area. Although the species does not appear to be particularly abundant
across its range, and much uncertainty regarding presence of the
species in suitable but unsurveyed portions of the range, the snail's
distribution across a large area (redundancy), with ten highly
resilient populations in four different sub-basins (representation),
indicates the species is likely to withstand catastrophic events in one
or more sub-basin.
The resources that the Puget Oregonian needs are likely to diminish
in quantity and quality over time with future increases in
environmental stressors including the effects of climate change, human
population growth in the Pacific Northwest, forest management, and
bigleaf maple dieback disease. If suitable habitat diminishes as
expected, we would anticipate a corresponding decline in the
resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the species. However, the
Puget Oregonian's current distribution in at least 15 sites across at
least four different sub-basins will support its ability to maintain
resiliency into the mid-21st century. Furthermore, the species' ability
to take refuge in small areas (microhabitat) could add to the future
resiliency of populations.
We know that features of the species' habitat may change in the
future, and we can project the scope and magnitude of some of those
environmental changes. However, our incomplete understanding of how the
species may respond to changes in its environment over time creates a
wide range of possibilities for the future condition of the 15 analytic
units we assessed. The best available information does not indicate
that the future magnitude and scope of potential environmental
stressors would be at a level that would cause the species to be in
danger of extinction in the foreseeable future.
Therefore, we find that listing the Puget Oregonian as an
endangered species or threatened species under the Act is not
warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be
found in the Puget Oregonian species status assessment and other
supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Rocky Mountain Monkeyflower
Previous Federal Actions
On October 4, 2011, we received a petition from WildEarth Guardians
requesting, in part, that we list the Rocky Mountain monkeyflower as an
endangered or threatened species under the Act. On August 29, 2012, we
published in the Federal Register (77 FR 52293) a 90-day finding that
the petition presented substantial information indicating that listing
the Rocky Mountain monkeyflower under the Act may be warranted. This
document constitutes our 12-month finding on the September 30, 2011,
petition to list the Rocky Mountain monkeyflower under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The Rocky Mountain monkeyflower, also known as the budding
monkeyflower, is a small, narrow endemic plant found in north-central
Colorado. Uniquely, this plant exhibits an asexual reproduction
strategy not seen within the Mimulus genus or in any other Holarctic
species; the plant produces propagules which contain ``bulbils,'' which
have all of the components needed to develop into a new plant,
including a shoot axis and rudimentary leaves and roots. The Rocky
Mountain monkeyflower occupies approximately 60 acres (24.28 hectares)
on State or Federal lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service, the
National Park Service, and Colorado
[[Page 78033]]
Parks and Wildlife in Boulder, Clear Creek, Grand, Jefferson, and
Larimer Counties in Colorado. Currently, we know of 24 occurrences of
the Rocky Mountain monkeyflower that constitute 19 populations;
surveyors have observed over 14 million ramets (ramets are individuals
that result from asexual reproduction and thus may be genetically
identical).
The Rocky Mountain monkeyflower inhabits montane to subalpine
habitats at elevations of 2,400 to 3,400 meters (7,874 to 11,154 feet)
and is found under overhangs of south-facing cliffs or boulders. Little
information exists about the ecological factors that affect growth and
establishment of the Rocky Mountain monkeyflower in the wild. The
survival of propagules is strongly influenced by moisture, temperature,
and substrate type. A number of patterns are apparent in the few
available studies on habitat parameters; all of the previous studies
and species descriptions suggest that periods of very moist or
saturated soil are important, but it appears that too much water can be
problematic for this species. The optimal hydrological conditions are
sites that are periodically saturated or, at most, consistently moist
with no long periods of standing water. Similarly, successful sites
have very shallow soil, typically fewer than two centimeters deep.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Rocky Mountain monkeyflower, and we evaluated all relevant
stressors under the five listing factors, including any regulatory
mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these stressors. We
identified climate change as the primary stressor affecting the Rocky
Mountain monkeyflower's biological status. Currently, the Rocky
Mountain monkeyflower has multiple, resilient populations distributed
across its range, encompassing various ecological conditions and some
genetic variation. While the Rocky Mountain monkeyflower is a narrow
endemic plant with low population sizes and a limited range, this
limitation does not seem to be currently compromising the species'
resiliency, redundancy, and representation, given the relatively large
numbers of ramets in multiple populations, the low risk of inbreeding
depression due to the plant's asexual reproduction, good or moderate
hydrological conditions in most populations, and relatively high levels
of genetic diversity for an asexual species. The species is only known
to occur on Federal and State public lands, which minimizes many
threats such that there are no stressors currently providing species-
level impacts. In the future, while we may lose some small Rocky
Mountain monkeyflower populations, we project that each analysis unit
will likely remain occupied. Moreover, in all projected future
scenarios, the three populations containing over 90 percent of
monkeyflower ramets will be in good or moderate condition. Furthermore,
the plant's asexual reproduction strategy confers, and likely would
continue to confer, additional resiliency because this less energy-
intensive method of reproduction allows the species to reproduce in
relatively harsh conditions. Thus, based on our analysis, we anticipate
that the Rocky Mountain monkeyflower will continue to have multiple,
resilient populations distributed across its narrow range, providing
for limited but sufficient redundancy and representation necessary to
withstand catastrophic events and adapt to environmental change into
the future.
Therefore, we find that listing the Rocky Mountain monkeyflower as
an endangered species or threatened species under the Act is not
warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be
found in the Rocky Mountain monkeyflower species assessment and other
supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Southern White-Tailed Ptarmigan
Previous Federal Actions
On August 24, 2010, we received a petition from CBD requesting that
we list either the U.S. population or the Rocky Mountain population of
the white-tailed ptarmigan as threatened or endangered distinct
population segments (DPSs) and that we designate critical habitat.
Following our correspondence with the petitioner regarding the accepted
taxonomy of the white-tailed ptarmigan and our DPS policy, the
petitioner revised the petition on September 1, 2011. The revised
petition requested that we list the southern white-tailed ptarmigan (L.
l. altipetens) and the Mt. Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan (L. l.
rainierensis) as threatened subspecies. On June 5, 2012, we published
in the Federal Register (77 FR 33143) a 90-day finding that the
petition presented substantial information that listing may be
warranted for the southern white-tailed ptarmigan and the Mt. Rainier
white-tailed ptarmigan. This document constitutes the 12-month finding
on the September 1, 2011, petition to list the southern white-tailed
ptarmigan under the Act. We will address our finding for the Mt.
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan in a future determination.
Summary of Finding
The southern white-tailed ptarmigan is a small bird that lives in
high-elevation, alpine ecosystems in Colorado, northern New Mexico, and
historically in the Snowy Range of southern Wyoming. Alpine ecosystems
are characterized by high winds, cold temperatures, short growing
seasons, low atmospheric oxygen concentrations, and intense solar
radiation. The southern white-tailed ptarmigan is one of five
subspecies of white-tailed ptarmigan in the Phasianidae family,
subfamily Tetraoninae, which includes the grouse, or ground-feeding
game birds. So named for its perpetually white tail feathers, the
southern white-tailed ptarmigan changes its plumage seasonally to match
the coloration and patterns of its alpine habitats, from white in
winter to brown in the summer, effectively camouflaging the birds
against snow and alpine rocks and vegetation. In addition to cryptic
coloration, the southern white-tailed ptarmigan displays other
adaptations to the temperature, precipitation, wind, and snow cover
extremes of its alpine habitats. For example, heavily feathered feet
support the southern white-tailed ptarmigan like snowshoes as they walk
across the snow, and the subspecies feeds almost exclusively on willow
buds during the winter when other food sources are scarce.
Nearly all suitable habitat for the southern-white tailed ptarmigan
occurs on lands managed by Federal land management agencies, with over
85 percent managed by the U.S. Forest Service, over 5 percent managed
by the National Park Service, and 4.5 percent managed by the Bureau of
Land Management. Approximately 6 percent of suitable habitat is located
on privately owned land. The distribution of southern white-tailed
ptarmigan is largely unchanged from historical levels in Colorado and
New Mexico, but a lack of recent observations indicates that the
subspecies is presumed extirpated from the Snowy Range in southern
Wyoming.
We determined that individual southern white-tailed ptarmigan have
specific habitat needs to breed, feed, and shelter, including suitable
winter snow conditions, available late-lying snowfields, summer
precipitation and monsoonal moisture, brood-rearing habitat, and
willows. We also determined that populations of southern white-tailed
ptarmigan need external recruitment of immigrants, breeding dispersal,
adult female survival, and
[[Page 78034]]
population growth in order to be resilient. Demographic connectivity
between populations is critical for resiliency, as it allows for
genetic exchange, dispersal, and external recruitment. The subspecies
needs a sufficient number and distribution of resilient populations to
withstand the annual variation in its environment, catastrophes, and
novel biological and physical changes in its environment.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the southern white-tailed ptarmigan, and we evaluated all relevant
factors under the five listing factors, including any regulatory
mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these stressors.
Potential stressors to the southern white-tailed ptarmigan include
predation, mining and related poisoning due to toxic concentrations of
trace metals, hunting, recreation, livestock and native ungulate
grazing, and the effects of global climate change. Through our
analysis, we found that only climate change may affect southern white-
tailed ptarmigan populations due to increases in minimum and maximum
temperatures; changes in snow quantity, quality, extent, and duration;
shifts in plant phenology; advancement of treeline, and expansion of
willow into alpine areas; and changes in the amount and timing of
seasonal precipitation. Although the other stressors may affect
individuals or local areas, they do not affect resiliency, redundancy,
or representation, alone or cumulatively, currently or into the future
for the southern white-tailed ptarmigan.
Currently, 14 out of 19 analytical units (a scale of analysis
similar to populations) have high resiliency, 3 have medium resiliency,
1 in New Mexico has very low resiliency, and the Snowy Range analytical
unit in Wyoming is presumed extirpated. Other than local declines in
New Mexico and the presumed extirpation in the Snowy Range, the
southern white-tailed ptarmigan currently occupies nearly all of its
historical range, and the subspecies has sufficient resiliency,
redundancy, and representation to withstand stochastic and catastrophic
events and to adapt to environmental changes. Therefore, given the
current levels of resiliency distributed across Colorado, the lack of
significant stressors, and the life-history characteristics of the
subspecies that make it uniquely adapted to the environmental extremes
of its alpine habitats, we conclude that the current risk of extinction
is low. In the future, we project reductions in resiliency, due to
changes in climate, with a minor reduction in redundancy and
representation if the analytical unit in New Mexico declines from very
low resiliency to an extirpated condition. However, at least 17
resilient analytical units are projected to remain distributed across
Colorado in the future, so the subspecies maintains enough resiliency,
redundancy, and representation to withstand stochastic and catastrophic
events and to adapt to changing conditions. Therefore, we consider the
future risk of extinction to also be low.
We find that listing the southern white-tailed ptarmigan as an
endangered subspecies or a threatened subspecies under the Act is not
warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be
found in the southern white-tailed ptarmigan species assessment and
other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Tidewater Amphipod
Previous Federal Actions
We identified the tidewater amphipod as a Category 2 candidate
species for listing in a May 22, 1984, notice of review (49 FR 21664).
Category 2 candidate species were taxa for which the Service had
information indicating that proposing to list the species as endangered
or threatened was possibly appropriate, but for which conclusive data
on biological vulnerability and threats were not at that time available
to support proposed rules. The tidewater amphipod remained designated
as a Category 2 candidate species in subsequent candidate notices of
review (54 FR 554, January 6, 1989; 56 FR 58804, November 21, 1991; 59
FR 58982, November 15, 1994). In the February 28, 1996, notice (61 FR
7596), we discontinued the designation of Category 2 species as
candidates, which removed the tidewater amphipod from our candidate
list.
On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from CBD, Alabama Rivers
Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network,
Tennessee Forests Council, and West Virginia Highlands to list 404
aquatic, riparian, and wetland species, including the tidewater
amphipod, as endangered or threatened species under the Act. On
September 27, 2011, we published in the Federal Register (76 FR 59836)
a 90-day finding in which we announced that the petition contained
substantial information indicating listing may be warranted for the
species. This document constitutes our 12-month finding on the April
20, 2010, petition to list the tidewater amphipod under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The tidewater amphipod is a small, subterranean, shallow
groundwater crustacean. Compared to similar amphipods, the tidewater
amphipod is relatively large, with males reaching lengths of 9.7
millimeters (mm) (0.38 inches (in)) and females 8.2 mm (0.32 in). The
species' entire known current distribution occurs within five counties
in Maryland and seven counties in Virginia spanning a distance of 180
miles (289 kilometers) of the Coastal Plain physiographic region.
Contemporary collections of tidewater amphipods have typically been
made during the winter and spring months when individuals can be found
in seepage springs, tile drains, and shallow wells.
Specific diet, water quality and quantity tolerances, and
behavioral and reproductive traits of tidewater amphipod are unknown.
However, based on the general principles of conservation biology,
information about other groundwater amphipod species, and local
information from the areas where tidewater amphipods have been
observed, we infer that individuals need shallow water habitats with
sufficient space to breed and shelter; sufficient water quality for
breeding and sheltering; forest cover, which provides a buffer for
water quality and quantity, and provides food; and a clay or confining
layer or pore space to help support feeding and sheltering when water
quantities are low.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the tidewater amphipod, and we evaluated all relevant factors under
the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressors
affecting the tidewater amphipod's biological status include reduced
groundwater quality and quantity, and we identified development (i.e.,
impervious surfaces) as a primary source of changes to both. In
response to degraded water quality, we conclude there could be
decreased fitness and declines in the tidewater amphipod's resiliency
caused by changes in biodiversity within its habitats. In response to
the greater threat of reduced water quantity, there is evidence that
the tidewater amphipod can burrow deeper underground for periods of
time and reemerge when sufficient water levels return. While
representation is assumed to have decreased when compared to historical
conditions, it appears the species has
[[Page 78035]]
sustained multiple populations across much of its historical range and
through multiple stochastic events such as drought. Considering the
future scenarios, the majority of populations do not appear to be at
high risk of development, and the impact to the species caused by
impervious surfaces is not projected to increase substantially. Thus,
the primary threats appear to have low imminence and magnitude such
that they are not providing species-level impacts to the tidewater
amphipod. We evaluated numerous other factors (e.g., climate change,
effects of small population size, collection, predation, disease,
recreation, forest management, and other conservation efforts) and
determined that they had little to no measurable impact on the species.
The species status assessment report describes many uncertainties in
the species' occurrence, populations, and response to threats, but,
considering the available data, the risk of extinction is low.
Therefore, we find that listing the tidewater amphipod as an
endangered species or threatened species under the Act is not
warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be
found in the tidewater amphipod species assessment and other supporting
documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Tufted Puffin
Previous Federal Actions
On February 14, 2014, we received a petition from the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) to list the contiguous U.S. DPS of
tufted puffin as an endangered or threatened species under the Act.
Alternatively, the NRDC stated that we should list the tufted puffin
species (i.e., the entire population(s) across its known range) and
apply this alternative if we found the contiguous U.S. population of
the species did not meet our DPS policy. On September 18, 2015, we
published in the Federal Register (80 FR 56423) a 90-day finding in
which we announced that the petition contained substantial information
indicating listing may be warranted for the contiguous U.S. DPS of
tufted puffin in the States of Washington, Oregon, and California. The
90-day finding neglected to make a determination specific to the NRDC's
alternative listing request. This document constitutes our 12-month
finding on the February 14, 2014, petition to list the tufted puffin
(addressing both petitioned entities) under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The tufted puffin is a widely distributed pelagic seabird found in
the North Pacific Ocean. The tufted puffin is a burrow-nester that
commonly nests colonially on offshore islands. Tufted puffins nest
along the coasts of California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska in the
United States, and in Canada (British Columbia), Russia, and Japan. The
majority of tufted puffins (82 percent) nest in North America,
primarily Alaska; Russia has the second largest concentration of
nesting tufted puffins (18 percent). Colony size is variable, ranging
from just a few birds to large colonies of greater than 100,000 tufted
puffins.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the tufted puffin, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the
five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these stressors. We determined that
the most significant threats impacting the tufted puffin and its
habitat are changing climate conditions, oil spills, fisheries bycatch,
mammalian and avian predators, nonnative plants and animals, and human
disturbance. The most significant of these threats to potentially
impact the resource needs of tufted puffins are climate change and oil
spills. Currently, the best available information for tufted puffins
indicates adequate redundancy and representation across the species'
range, including robust populations across the majority of its range.
The species continues to occur throughout its historical range. While
the tufted puffin's range will likely continue to contract in the south
due to climate change, models predict the species will continue to
remain widely distributed throughout most of its historical range. The
tufted puffin is expected to maintain resilient colonies throughout a
large proportion of its range, including likely continued
representation across most of its range.
Therefore, we find that listing the contiguous U.S. DPS of tufted
puffin or the tufted puffin species as endangered or threatened is not
warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be
found in the tufted puffin species assessment and other supporting
documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Hamlin Valley Pyrg, Longitudinal Gland Pyrg, Sub-Globose Snake Pyrg
Previous Federal Actions
On July 30, 2007, 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. This petition
included the Hamlin Valley pyrg, longitudinal gland pyrg, and sub-
globose snake pyrg. On February 27, 2009, we received another petition
dated February 17, 2009, from the CBD, Tierra Curry, Noah Greenwald,
Dr. James Deacon, Don Duff, and the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation
Society, requesting that we list 42 species of Great Basin springsnails
in Nevada, Utah, and California, including the Hamlin Valley pyrg,
longitudinal gland pyrg, and sub-globose snake pyrg, as endangered or
threatened, and designating critical habitat under the Act. On August
18, 2009, we published in the Federal Register (74 FR 41649) a 90-day
finding in which we announced that the petitions contained substantial
information indicating listing these three species may be warranted.
This document constitutes the 12-month finding on the July 30, 2007,
and February 17, 2009, petitions to list the Hamlin Valley pyrg,
longitudinal gland pyrg, and sub-globose snake pyrg under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The three springsnail species are in the genus Pyrgulopsis of the
Hydrobiidae family. In general, the three species are morphologically
similar with hardened shells and soft anatomy, and they are
differentiated based on subtle morphological characteristics. The
Hamlin Valley pyrg occurs only in the White Rock Cabin Springs province
in Hamlin Valley, straddling the Utah and Nevada State line. The Utah
portion of the spring province is all on private land, while the Nevada
portion is entirely within the White Rock Range Wilderness Area managed
by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The longitudinal gland pyrg
occurs on private land at three springs or spring provinces (Big
Springs province, Stateline Springs province, and Clay Spring) in the
Snake Valley area of White Pine County, Nevada, and Millard County,
Utah. The sub-globose snake pyrg occurs only in Utah at Gandy Warm
Springs in Snake Valley, contained entirely within the Gandy Mountain
Caves Area of Critical Environmental Concern managed by the BLM.
All three springsnails are very small in size, only a few
millimeters in length
[[Page 78036]]
and width, and have limited ability or tendency to move. These species
are herbivores or detritivores that primarily graze on the periphyton
(freshwater organisms attached or clinging to plants) of exposed
surfaces of aquatic plants and substrates in the small springs they
inhabit. We determined the following spring conditions are most
critical in influencing the physical and biological needs of
springsnails: Sufficient water quality, adequate substrate and
vegetation, free-flowing water, and adequate spring discharge. When
each of these physical and biological needs is present and functioning
within a spring, stable populations of springsnails are expected.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the springsnails, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the
five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these stressors. Historically and
through the present, the three springsnail species and their habitats
were impacted to varying degrees by predation and competition,
vegetation and soil disturbance, water pollution, spring modification,
and groundwater pumping. However, we determined the most important
stressors likely to impact future conditions of the three species
include groundwater pumping and withdrawals, altered precipitation and
temperature, and, in the case of the sub-globose snake pyrg, nonnative
fish competition.
The Hamlin Valley pyrg occurs in one population with 10 of 11
occupied springbrooks in high overall resiliency condition and one
springbrook in moderate condition; resiliency is high in all but one
springbrook due to high abundance despite some environmental stressors.
Redundancy and representation are limited due to the species' narrow
range and its single population; however, this is likely similar to
historical conditions. Therefore, we conclude that the current risk of
extinction is low. In the future, we project the Hamlin Valley pyrg
population to have high resiliency due to predicted high abundance and
protection of the water source from pumping due to wilderness
designation of groundwater areas upslope of the spring province.
Redundancy and representation are projected to continue to be limited
due to the species' narrow range and only one population, but this is
likely similar to historical conditions for this narrow endemic
species. In the future, we expect the species' habitat to continue to
provide for the needs of sufficient water quality, adequate substrate
and vegetation, free-flowing water, and adequate spring discharge.
Additionally, we consider the future risk of catastrophic or stochastic
events affecting this species or its habitat to be low.
The longitudinal gland pyrg currently occurs in three locations
with 13 occupied springbrooks in high overall resiliency condition, 5
springbrooks in moderate condition, and only 1 springbrook in low
condition. Resiliency is high in most springbrooks due to high
abundance despite some environmental stressors. Competition and
predation, spring modification, and vegetation and soil disturbance
from grazing and roads are the only historical and current stressors.
Because most populations exhibit high resilience despite the co-
occurrence of stressors, we concluded that the stressors have a low to
moderate effect on the longitudinal gland pyrg. Current abundance,
range, and effects of stressors make it unlikely there would be a loss
in redundancy or representation, and we expect the redundancy and
representation to be adequate. Therefore, we conclude that the current
risk of extinction is low. In the future, we project that the
longitudinal gland pyrg will continue to have populations with high
resiliency due to predicted high abundance despite the future effects
of environmental stressors and because groundwater pumping is unlikely
to occur in the foreseeable future. Redundancy and representation are
projected to continue to be adequate in the future with three occupied
spring systems with multiple occupied springbrooks. In the future, we
expect the species' habitat to continue to provide for the needs of
sufficient water quality, adequate substrate and vegetation, free-
flowing water, and adequate spring discharge. Additionally, we consider
the future risk of catastrophic or stochastic events affecting this
species or its habitat to be low.
The sub-globose snake pyrg currently occurs in one spring system
with multiple springbrooks in the upper reaches of the spring system in
moderate resiliency condition. The spring system is a warm water system
with temperatures greater than 25 degrees Celsius (77 degrees
Fahrenheit). The population appears to be resilient to environmental
stressors; however, numbers of snails are down overall due to the
recent invasion of armored catfish into the lower reaches of the
system, which is the only current threat to the species. The upper
reaches of the system still have high numbers of snails and a low
probability of armored catfish invasion. The BLM, Utah Division of
Wildlife Resources, and the Service entered into the Conservation
Agreement and Strategy for the Sub-globose Snake Pyrg (Agreement) in
2020. We evaluated the certainty that the conservation measures in the
Agreement will be implemented and effective in our Policy for the
Evaluation of Conservation Efforts (PECE) analysis. Using the criteria
specified in PECE (68 FR 15100, March 28. 2003), we have determined
that all of the PECE criteria have been satisfied. We find that the
2020 CAS has a high level of certainty for future implementation and
certainty of the effectiveness. Nonnative fish removal efforts under
the strategy have already begun to reduce armored catfish numbers in
Gandy Warm Springs. Current redundancy and representation are limited
due to the narrow range of the species and its single population, but
this is likely similar to historical conditions. Therefore, we conclude
that the current risk of extinction is low. Our assessment of the
future status of this species takes into consideration the Agreement,
which includes the continuation of conservation actions to eliminate
nonnative fish from Gandy Warm Springs and prevent future invasion,
thereby addressing this threat to the species. Future resiliency is
expected to increase due to the removal of nonnative fish in accordance
with the Agreement, the fact that groundwater pumping is unlikely, and
the species' past ability to sustain itself despite other environmental
stressors. Redundancy and representation are projected to continue to
be limited in the future due to the species' narrow range and its
single population, but this is likely similar to historical conditions.
In the future, we expect the species' habitat to continue to provide
for the needs of sufficient water quality, adequate substrate and
vegetation, free-flowing water, and adequate spring discharge.
Additionally, we consider the future risk of catastrophic or stochastic
events affecting the sub-globose snake pyrg or its habitat to be low.
Therefore, we find that listing the Hamlin Valley pyrg,
longitudinal gland pyrg, and sub-globose snake pyrg as endangered
species or threatened species under the Act is not warranted. A
detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the
Hamlin Valley pyrg, longitudinal gland pyrg, and sub-globose snake pyrg
species assessment and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES,
above).
[[Page 78037]]
Johnson Springs Wetland Complex Population of Relict Dace
Previous Federal Actions
On June 27, 2014, we received a petition from Forest Service
Employees for Environmental Ethics, requesting that the Johnson Springs
Wetland Complex Population (JSWC) population of relict dace be listed
as an endangered DPS under the Act. On April 10, 2015, we published a
90-day finding (80 FR 19259) that the petition presented substantial
information indicating that listing the JSWC population of relict dace
may be warranted and that we were initiating a status review. This
document constitutes our 12-month finding on the June 27, 2014 petition
to list the JSWC population of relict dace under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The relict dace is a small fish in the Cyprinidae family that was
first described in 1972 (Hubbs and Miller 1972, pp. 101-102). It is
found in spring systems in five isolated valleys in the northeastern
corner of Nevada; these valleys are estimated to have been separated
for hundreds of thousands of years. Four of these valleys contain
native populations, including the JSWC, and one includes only
introduced populations.
Waterbodies occupied by the species include springs, spring pools,
and spring outflows; wetlands; natural and human-modified channels;
ditches; ephemeral reservoirs; and creeks. The relict dace feeds on
aquatic invertebrates, including mayfly and damselfly nymphs; they
consume relatively little plant material (Carmichael 1983, p. 88).
Little is known about relict dace breeding or behavior; however, the
species is considered secretive (NDOW 2007, p. 4).
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding whether the JSWC population of relict
dace qualifies as a DPS. Based on our thorough review, we find that the
JSWC population of relict dace meets our criteria for discreteness
under our February 7, 1996 DPS policy (61 FR 4722); however, it does
not meet the criteria for significance based on the four criteria
outlined in the DPS policy. The JSWC population of relict dace does not
occur in a unique or unusual setting for relict dace, does not show
evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would result in a
significant gap in the range of relict dace, and does not represent the
only surviving native occurrence of relict dace. While genetic
discontinuity demonstrates the JSWC population segment is markedly
separate from other relict dace populations, we find no evidence that
these measures of genetic divergence result in marked differences in
the JSWC population segment's genetic characteristics. Therefore, the
JSWC relict dace population is not a listable entity under the Act.
Because the JSWC population of relict dace is not a listable entity, we
did not perform a status assessment under the five factors as required
under section 4(a) of the Act. This finding constitutes our completion
of our review of the petitioned action.
A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in
the JSWC population of relict dace species assessment and other
supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Clear Lake Hitch
Previous Federal Actions
We received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity on
September 25, 2012 (CBD 2012, entire), to list the Clear Lake hitch as
threatened or endangered under the Act. The Service issued a 90-day
finding on April 10, 2015 (80 FR 19259), stating the petition presented
substantial information that listing the Clear Lake hitch may be
warranted and that we were initiating a status review. This document
constitutes the 12-month finding on the September 25, 2012, petition to
list the Clear Lake hitch.
Summary of Finding
The Clear Lake hitch (hitch) (Lavinia exilicauda chi) is a large
cyprinid (freshwater minnow) that is endemic to the Clear Lake
watershed in Lake County, California. Historically, the Clear Lake
hitch occurred in several lakes and ponds found throughout the Clear
Lake watershed, including: Clear Lake, Thurston Lake, Upper Blue Lake,
Lower Blue Lake, and Lampson Pond. During the spring, Clear Lake hitch
were also found in the numerous tributaries to these larger water
bodies, including: Kelsey, Scott, Middle, Adobe, Seigler Canyon,
Manning, Cole, Morrison, and Schindler Creeks. All of the waterbodies,
listed above, with the exception of Thurston Lake, were hydrologically
connected to each other in the past, and it appears that Thurston Lake
and its tributary, Thurston Creek, have always been isolated from the
other waterways. Local opinion is that hitch were introduced into
Thurston Lake by a local resident less than 50 years ago. The Clear
Lake hitch is restricted to the Clear Lake watershed in Lake County,
California, in the central Coast Range Mountains. Currently, the hitch
is thought to be extirpated from the Blue Lakes, but still occurs in
Clear and Thurston Lakes throughout the year. In the spring,
reproductive adults migrate into tributary streams to spawn and then
migrate back to the lakes after spawning. It is unclear whether Lampson
Pond still exists; therefore, the status of the Clear Lake hitch in
Lampson Pond is unknown.
For most of the year, Clear Lake hitch are only found within their
lacustrine (lake) environment. However, between February and May, a
portion of the overall reproductive population begins to migrate into
the surrounding tributaries to spawn. Spawning activities include one
to five males pursuing a gravid female to fertilize her freshly
extruded eggs, which are deposited on fine to medium sized gravel
within the tributary stream. Fertilized eggs develop and hatch within 7
to 10 days, fry are free-swimming after another 7 to 10 days, and young
migrate to the lake at about a month old before the streams dry up.
Juvenile hitch are found within the nearshore habitat of the lake where
they depend on submerged aquatic vegetation for cover and prey.
Juvenile hitch move from the nearshore portion of the lake into open
water in early-to late-fall. There is evidence that Clear Lake hitch do
not require tributary streams with gravel to spawn, but can also spawn
successfully in different portions of the lake (i.e., along the shore,
the mouths of tributaries, and Rodman Slough) that lack a gravel
substrate.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Clear Lake hitch, and we evaluated all relevant factors under
the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressors
affecting the Clear Lake hitch's biological status include habitat
degradation, predation and competition, drought and climate change.
Based on our examination of the best available scientific information,
we have determined that habitat degradation, predation and competition,
drought and climate change are not likely to adversely affect the
overall viability of the Clear Lake hitch in a biologically meaningful
way to such an extent that the species is in danger of extinction or
likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range for the following reasons: (1) The
Clear Lake hitch has a long life span, (2) the Clear Lake hitch are
highly fecund, and (3) the Clear Lake hitch has shown the ability to
use different spawning strategies, which
[[Page 78038]]
demonstrates its behavioral flexibility to variable environmental
conditions. Additionally, regulatory mechanisms such as the California
Endangered Species Act (CESA) and local ordinances are currently acting
to ameliorate the severity of some existing threats, such as the take
of individuals, degradation of tributary streams, and loss of wetland
habitat surrounding Clear Lake. Furthermore, the SSA presented three
plausible future scenarios, which included various states of potential
future conditions for the species. Our analysis of these scenarios
indicates that the Clear Lake hitch will maintain its current
resiliency, representation, or redundancy, or undergo only a slight
decrease in condition into the foreseeable future. Even under a
projection of a slight decrease in future condition, the Clear Lake
hitch was not projected to be in danger of extinction in the next 50
years.
Therefore, we find that listing the Clear Lake hitch as an
endangered or threatened species under the Act is not warranted at this
time. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found
in the Clear Lake hitch species assessment form and other supporting
documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
New Information
We request that you submit any new information concerning the
taxonomy of, biology of, ecology of, status of, or stressors to the
Doll's daisy, Puget Oregonian, Rocky Mountain monkeyflower, southern
white-tailed ptarmigan, tidewater amphipod, tufted puffin, Hamlin
Valley pyrg, longitudinal gland pyrg, sub-globose snake pyrg, the
Johnson Springs Wetland Complex population of relict dace, or Clear
Lake hitch to the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, whenever it becomes available. New information
will help us monitor these species and make appropriate decisions about
their conservation and status. We encourage local agencies and
stakeholders to continue cooperative monitoring and conservation
efforts.
References Cited
A list of the references cited in this petition finding is
available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov in the
appropriate docket provided above in ADDRESSES and upon request from
the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Species Assessment Team, Ecological Services Program.
Authority
The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Aurelia Skipwith,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-26139 Filed 12-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
