[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64210-64227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [http://www.gpo.gov/]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25195]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2016-0086; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-BB52
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species
Status for Meltwater Lednian Stonefly and Western Glacier Stonefly With
a Section 4(d) Rule
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine
threatened species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(Act), as amended, for the meltwater lednian stonefly (Lednia tumana)
and the western glacier stonefly (Zapada glacier), both aquatic species
from alpine streams and springs. Meltwater lednian stoneflies are found
in Montana and Canada, and western glacier stoneflies are found in
Montana and Wyoming. The effect of this regulation will be to add these
species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. We also
finalize a rule under the authority of section 4(d) of the Act that
provides measures that are necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation of these species. We have also determined that designation
of critical habitat for these species is not prudent.
DATES: This rule becomes effective December 23, 2019.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available at http://www.regulations.gov/
in Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2016-0086 and at https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/meltwaterLednianStonefly.php and at https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/westernGlacierStonefly.php on the internet.
Comments and materials we received, as well as supporting documentation
we used in preparing this rule, are available for public inspection at
http://www.regulations.gov/. Comments, materials, and documentation that
we considered in this rulemaking will be available by appointment,
during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Montana Ecological Services Office, 585 Shepard Way, Suite 1, Helena,
MT 59601; 406-449-5225.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jodi Bush, Office Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Ecological Services Field Office,
585 Shepard Way, Suite 1, Helena, MT 59601, by telephone 406-449-5225.
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may call the
Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act, a
species may warrant protection through listing if it is endangered or
threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species can only be
completed by issuing a rule.
What this document does. This rule will add the meltwater lednian
stonefly (Lednia tumana) and western glacier stonefly (Zapada glacier)
as threatened species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.11(h) with
a rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act (hereafter referred to as a
``4(d) rule'') at 50 CFR 17.47.
The basis for our action. Under the Endangered Species Act, we can
determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species based
on any of 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. We have determined that habitat
fragmentation and degradation in the form of declining streamflows and
increasing water temperatures resulting from climate change are
currently affecting habitat for the meltwater lednian stonefly and the
western glacier stonefly (Factor A).
Based on empirical evidence, most glaciers supplying cold water to
meltwater lednian and western glacier stonefly habitats in Glacier
National Park (GNP) are projected to melt by 2030. As a result, habitat
with a high probability of occupancy for the meltwater lednian stonefly
is modeled to decrease 81 percent by 2030 (Muhlfeld et al. 2011, p.
342). A decrease in distribution of western glacier stonefly has
already been documented. Drought is expected to further reduce the
amount of habitat occupied by meltwater lednian stonefly and western
glacier stonefly, due to reductions of meltwater from seasonal snowpack
and anticipated future reduction of flow from other meltwater sources
in the foreseeable future (Factor E). As a result of this anticipated
loss of habitat, only a few refugia streams and springs are expected to
persist in the long term. Recolonization of intermittent habitats where
known occurrences of either species are extirpated is not anticipated,
given the poor dispersal abilities of similar stonefly species. Threats
to meltwater lednian stonefly and western glacier stonefly habitat are
currently occurring rangewide, are based on empirical evidence of past
and current glacial melting, and are expected to continue into the
foreseeable future.
Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from seven
objective and independent specialists (and received three responses) to
ensure that our determination is based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. As directed by the Service's Peer Review
Policy dated July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270) and a recent memo updating the
peer review policy for listing and recovery actions (August 22, 2016),
we invited these peer reviewers to comment on our listing proposal. We
also considered all comments and information received during two public
comment periods. All comments received during the peer review process
and the public comment periods have either been incorporated throughout
this rule or addressed in the Summary of Comments and Recommendations
section.
Previous Federal Action
Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the meltwater lednian
stonefly and western glacier stonefly (81 FR 68379, October 4, 2016)
for a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning these
species prior to October 4, 2016. In that proposed rule, we explained
that we received new information on the western glacier stonefly in
August 2016, indicating a larger range than previously known. However,
due to a settlement agreement deadline, we were unable to fully
incorporate and analyze the new information before publishing our
October 4, 2016, 12-month finding and proposed listing rule. In March
2017, we received additional information (separate from the information
received in August 2016) on the western glacier stonefly, also
indicating a larger range
[[Page 64211]]
than previously known. On October 31, 2017, we reopened the comment
period on our proposed listing rule to allow the public to comment on
both sets of new information (82 FR 50360). Now that we have had the
opportunity to fully consider this new information from August 2016 and
March 2017, we have incorporated it into this final rule.
Our October 4, 2016, proposed rule included a determination that
critical habitat for the meltwater lednian stonefly and western glacier
stonefly was prudent but not determinable at that time (81 FR 68379).
Since that time, the Service finalized regulations related to listing
species and designating critical habitat (84 FR 45020, August 27,
2019), which revised the regulations that implement section 4 of the
Act and clarify circumstances in which critical habitat may be found
not prudent. Regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) provide the
circumstances when critical habitat may be not prudent, and we have
determined that a designation of critical habitat for these species is
not prudent, as discussed further below.
Our October 4, 2016, proposed rule also referenced a section of the
regulation that provided threatened species with the same protections
as endangered species also known as ``blanket rules'' (50 CFR 17.31).
The Service has since published regulations on August 27, 2019 (84 FR
44753), amending 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.71 that state ``the blanket rules
will no longer be in place, but the Secretary will still be required to
make a decision about what regulations to put in place for the
species.'' While the Service always had the ability to promulgate
species-specific 4(d) rules for threatened species, moving forward we
will promulgate a species-specific 4(d) rule for each species that we
determine meets the definition of a threatened species. As explained
below, in the preamble to our 2016 proposed rule, we determined that a
rule that included the prohibitions set forth in 50 CFR 17.21 for
endangered species would be necessary and advisable for the
conservation of the meltwater lednian stonefly and the western glacier
stonefly. Consequently, we are promulgating a species-specific 4(d)
rule that outlines the protections that were described in the 2016
proposed rule; see Provisions of the 4(d) Rule, below.
I. Final Listing Determination
Background
Both the meltwater lednian stonefly (e.g., Baumann 1975, p. 18;
Baumann et al. 1977, pp. 7, 34; Newell et al. 2008, p. 181; Stark et
al. 2009, entire) and western glacier stonefly (Baumann 1975, p. 30;
Stark 1996, entire; Stark et al. 2009, p. 8) are recognized as valid
species by the scientific community. Both stonefly species begin life
as eggs, hatch into aquatic nymphs, and later mature into winged
adults, surviving briefly on land before reproducing and dying.
Meltwater habitat for meltwater lednian stonefly and western glacier
stonefly is supplied by glaciers and rock glaciers, as well as by four
other sources: (1) Seasonal snow, (2) perennial snow, (3) alpine
springs, and (4) ice masses (Giersch et al. 2017, p. 2584). Please
refer to the proposed listing rule for the meltwater lednian stonefly
and western glacier stonefly (81 FR 68379, October 4, 2016) for a full
discussion of taxonomy, species descriptions, and biology. We have
received no new substantive information on those topics since that
time.
Distribution and Abundance
Meltwater Lednian Stonefly
Meltwater lednian stoneflies are known to occur in northwestern
Montana and southwest Alberta (Giersch et al. 2017; p. 2582).
Specifically, meltwater lednian stoneflies are known to occur in 113
streams: 109 in Glacier National Park (GNP), 2 south of GNP on National
Forest land, 1 south of GNP on tribal land (Figure 1; Giersch et al.
2017; p. 2582), and 1 north of GNP in Waterton Lakes National Park in
Alberta, Canada (Donald and Anderson 1977, p. 114; Baumann and
Kondratieff 2010, p. 315; Giersch 2017, pers. comm.). In the proposed
rule (81 FR 68379, October 4, 2016), we indicated meltwater lednian
stoneflies were known from historical collections in Waterton Lakes
National Park in Canada, but were not known to be extant there.
However, recent surveys conducted after the proposed rule was published
have also documented the species in the same watershed in Waterton
Lakes National Park where they were sampled historically (Giersch 2017,
pers. comm.). Meltwater lednian stoneflies occupy relatively short
reaches of streams [mean = 592 meters (m) (1,942 feet; ft); standard
deviation = 455 m (1,493 ft)] below meltwater sources (for description,
see Habitat section below; Giersch et al. 2017; p. 2582). Meltwater
lednian stoneflies can attain moderate to high densities [(350-5,800
per square m) (32-537 per square ft)] (e.g., Logan Creek: Baumann and
Stewart 1980, p. 658; National Park Service (NPS) 2009, entire;
Muhlfeld et al. 2011, p. 342; Giersch 2016, pers. comm.). Given this
range of densities and a coarse assessment of available habitat, we
estimated the abundance of meltwater lednian stonefly in the millions
of individuals; however, no population trend information is available
for the meltwater lednian stonefly.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 64212]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21NO19.013
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
Western Glacier Stonefly
Western glacier stoneflies are known to occur in 16 streams: 6 in
GNP, 4 in Grand Teton National Park (GTNP), and 6 in the Absaroka/
Beartooth Wilderness on the Custer/Gallatin National Forest (Figure 2;
Giersch et al. 2017, p. 2584; Giersch 2017, pers. comm.). The number of
streams known to be occupied by western glacier stonefly has increased
from the number reported in the proposed rule, due to new information
received after the proposed rule was published (Hotaling et al. 2017,
entire; Giersch et al. 2017, p. 2584). Similar to the meltwater lednian
stonefly, western glacier stoneflies are found on relatively short
reaches of streams [mean = 569 m (1,869 ft); standard deviation = 459 m
(1,506 ft)] in close proximity to meltwater sources (Giersch et al.
2017). Western glacier stoneflies can attain moderate densities [(400-
2,300 per square m) (37-213 per square ft)] in GNP (Giersch 2016, pers.
comm.). Lower densities of western glacier stoneflies have been
reported in GTNP [(up to 11-56 per square m) (up to 1-5 per square ft)]
(Tronstad 2017, pers. comm.). Given this range of densities and a
coarse assessment of available habitat, we estimated the abundance of
the western glacier stonefly to be in the tens of thousands of
individuals, presumably
[[Page 64213]]
less numerous than the meltwater lednian stonefly.
The recent discovery and subsequent genetic confirmation of western
glacier stoneflies in streams in GTNP and the Absaroka/Beartooth
Wilderness has increased the known range of the species by about 500
kilometers (km) (~311 miles (mi)) southward (Hotaling et al. 2017,
entire; Giersch et al. 2017, p. 2585). However, western glacier
stoneflies have decreased in distribution among and within six streams
in GNP where the species was known to occur in the 1960s and 1970s
(Giersch et al. 2015, p. 58).
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21NO19.014
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
The northern distributional limits of the meltwater lednian
stonefly and the western glacier stonefly are not known. Potential
habitat for meltwater lednian and western glacier stoneflies, which
appears to be similar to the habitat both species are currently
occupying, exists in the area of Banff and Jasper National Parks,
Alberta, Canada. Aquatic invertebrate surveys have been conducted in
this area, and no specimens of either species were found, although it
is likely that sampling did not occur close enough to glaciers or
icefields to detect either meltwater
[[Page 64214]]
lednian or western glacier stonefly, if indeed they were present
(Hirose 2016, pers. comm.). Sampling in this area for both meltwater
lednian and western glacier stoneflies is planned for the future and
would help fill in an important data gap with regard to northern
distributional limits of both species.
Habitat
Meltwater Lednian Stonefly
The meltwater lednian stonefly is found in high-elevation, alpine
streams (Baumann and Stewart 1980, p. 658; Montana Natural Heritage
Program 2010a) originating from meltwater sources, including glaciers
and small icefields, perennial and seasonal snowpack, alpine springs,
and glacial lake outlets (Hauer et al. 2007, p. 107; Giersch et al.
2017, p. 2584). These streams are believed to be fishless, due to their
high gradient. Meltwater lednian stoneflies are known from alpine
streams where modeled maximum water temperatures do not exceed 10
degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (50 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) (Giersch et
al. 2017, p. 2584), although the species can withstand higher water
temperatures (~20 [deg]C; 68 [deg]F) for short periods of time (Treanor
et al. 2013, p. 602). In general, the alpine streams inhabited by the
meltwater lednian stonefly are presumed to have very low nutrient
concentrations (low nitrogen and phosphorus), reflecting the nutrient
content of the glacial or snowmelt source (Hauer et al. 2007, pp. 107-
108). During the daytime, meltwater lednian stonefly nymphs prefer to
occupy the underside of rocks or larger pieces of bark or wood (Baumann
and Stewart 1980, p. 658; Giersch et al. 2017, p. 2579).
Western Glacier Stonefly
Western glacier stoneflies are found in high-elevation, alpine
streams closely linked to the same meltwater sources as the meltwater
lednian stonefly (Giersch et al. 2017; p. 2584). The specific thermal
tolerances of the western glacier stonefly are not known. However, all
recent collections of the western glacier stonefly in GNP have occurred
in habitats with daily maximum water temperatures less than 13.3 [deg]C
(55.9 [deg]F) (Giersch et al. 2017, p. 2584). Further, abundance
patterns for other species in the Zapada genus in GNP indicate
preferences for the coolest environmental temperatures, such as those
found at high elevation in proximity to headwater sources (Hauer et al.
2007, p. 110). Daytime microhabitat preferences of the western glacier
stonefly appear similar to those for the meltwater lednian stonefly as
described above (Giersch et al. 2017, p. 2579).
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or
``threatened species.'' The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range,'' and a ``threatened species'' as a
species that is ``likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' The Act requires that we determine whether a species meets the
definition of ``endangered species'' or ``threatened species'' because
of any of the following factors: (A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a
framework within which we evaluate the foreseeable future on a case-by-
case basis. The term foreseeable future extends only so far into the
future as the Services can reasonably determine that both the future
threats and the species' responses to those threats are likely. The
foreseeable future extends only so far as the predictions about the
future are reliable. ``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means
sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the
prediction. 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.
Below is a summary of biological status and threats for listing
factors A and E, including new information and citations provided to us
during the peer review and public comment period. See the proposed
listing rule for information on biological status and threats for
listing factors B, C, and D (81 FR 68379, October 4, 2016; pp. 68390-
68392). We did not make substantive changes to listing factors B, C,
and D between the proposed and final listing rules because we have
received no new substantive information relevant to our analysis of
those factors. Also, see the proposed listing rule for discussion of
synergistic effects and the Factor E discussion in this rule, which
addresses comments from a peer reviewer with regard to synergistic
effects (81 FR 68379, October 4, 2016, pp. 68392-68393).
For listing factors A and E, we made substantive changes between
the proposed and final listing rules. As described further below in
Summary of Changes from the Proposed Rule, in the proposed listing
rule, we identified populations of meltwater lednian stonefly and
western glacier stonefly based on watershed boundaries. However,
multiple peer reviewers observed the need for empirical evidence to
support that assessment. Therefore, we have updated our explanation to
describe the number of streams occupied by both meltwater lednian
stonefly and western glacier stonefly in our Factors A and E analyses.
In addition, we received updated information on the distribution of
meltwater lednian stonefly and western glacier stonefly after the
proposed rule was published. Meltwater lednian stonefly are now known
from southwest Alberta, Canada (Giersch et al. 2017; p. 2582). In
addition, new information documented and genetically confirmed the
presence of western glacier stonefly approximately 500 km (311 mi)
farther south than previously known (Giersch et al. 2016, p. 28;
Hotaling et al. 2017, entire). These southern populations of western
glacier stonefly were in the Absaroka-Beartooth wilderness in southern
Montana and in Grand Teton National Park in northwestern Wyoming. As a
result of this new information, we have now identified a total of 16
streams occupied by western glacier stonefly. Here, we analyze how both
species are affected by threats under Factors A and E in all of their
currently known locations.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Meltwater lednian stoneflies occupy remote, high-elevation alpine
habitats in GNP and several proximate watersheds. Western glacier
stoneflies occupy similar habitats in GNP, GTNP, and the Absaroka/
Beartooth Wilderness. The remoteness of these habitats largely
precludes overlap with human uses and typical land management
activities (e.g., forestry, mining, irrigation) that have historically
modified habitats of many species. However, these relatively pristine,
remote habitats are not expected to be immune to the effects of climate
change. Thus, our analysis
[[Page 64215]]
under Factor A focuses on the expected effects of climate change on
meltwater lednian and western glacier stonefly habitats.
Climate Change
See the proposed listing rule for general background information on
global climate change (81 FR 68379, October 4, 2016).
Uncertainty in Climate Projections
Any model (representation of something) carries with it some level
of uncertainty. Consequently, there is uncertainty in climate
projections and related impacts across and within different regions of
the world (e.g., Glick et al. 2011, pp. 68-73; Deser et al. 2012,
entire; International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2014, pp. 12, 14).
This uncertainty can come from multiple sources, including type,
amount, and quality of evidence, changing likelihoods of diverse
outcomes, ambiguously defined concepts or terminology, or human
behavior (IPCC 2014, pp. 37, 56, 58, 128). Methods developed to convey
uncertainty in climate projections include quantifying uncertainty
(IPCC 2014, p. 2) or analyzing for trends among climate projections
(IPCC 2014, pp. 8, 10). Also, uncertainty in climate projections can be
reduced by using more regionalized data to produce higher resolution,
more accurate climate projections (Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58-61). This
uncertainty was considered in this determination. We note that despite
the inherent uncertainties associated with climate models/projections,
empirical data are used to develop climate models. These models and
their associated projections often constitute the best available
science, in the absence of other relevant information.
Regional Climate
The western United States appears to be warming faster than the
global average. In the Pacific Northwest, regionally averaged
temperatures have risen 0.8 [deg]C (1.5 [deg]F) over the last century
and as much as 2 [deg]C (4 [deg]F) in some areas and are projected to
increase by another 1.5 to 5.5 [deg]C (3 to 10 [deg]F) over the next
100 years (Karl et al. 2009, p. 135). Since 1900, the mean annual air
temperature for GNP and the surrounding region has increased 1.3 [deg]C
(2.3 [deg]F), which is 1.8 times the global mean increase (U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) 2010, p. 1). Warming also appears to be
pronounced in alpine regions globally (e.g., Hall and Fagre 2003, p.
134 and references therein). For the purposes of this final rule, we
consider the foreseeable future for anticipated effects of climate
change on the alpine environment to be approximately 35 years (~year
2050) based on two factors. First, various global climate models and
emissions scenarios provide consistent projections within that
timeframe (IPCC 2014, p. 11). Second, the effect of climate change on
glaciers in GNP has been modeled within that timeframe (e.g., Hall and
Fagre 2003, entire; Brown et al. 2010, entire).
Habitats for both the meltwater lednian stonefly and the western
glacier stonefly originate from meltwater sources that will be impacted
by any projected warming, including glaciers, rock glaciers and small
icefields, perennial and seasonal snowpack, alpine springs, and glacial
lake outlets (Hauer et al. 2007, p. 107; Giersch et al. 2017, p. 2584).
The alteration or loss of these meltwater sources and perennial habitat
has direct consequences on both meltwater lednian stonefly and western
glacier stonefly populations. Below, we provide an overview of expected
rate of loss of meltwater sources as a result of climate change,
followed by the projected effects to stonefly habitat from altered
stream flows and water temperatures.
Glacier Loss
Glacier loss in GNP is directly influenced by climate change (e.g.,
Hall and Fagre 2003, entire; Fagre 2005, entire). When established in
1910, GNP contained approximately 150 glaciers larger than 0.1 square
kilometer (25 acres) in size, but presently only 25 glaciers larger
than this size remain (Fagre 2005, pp. 1-3; USGS 2005, 2010). Hall and
Fagre (2003, entire) modeled the effects of climate change on glacier
persistence in GNP's Blackfoot-Jackson basin using two climate
scenarios based on empirical air temperature and glacier melt rate
data: (1) Doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide by 2030
(CO2) and (2) linear temperature-extrapolation. Under the
CO2 scenario, regional air temperatures were projected to
increase 3.3 [deg]C by 2100, and glaciers were projected to completely
melt in GNP by 2030, with projected increases in winter precipitation
not expected to buffer glacial shrinking (Hall and Fagre 2003, pp. 137-
138). Under the linear temperature-extrapolation scenario, regional air
temperatures were projected to increase 0.45 [deg]C by 2100, and
glaciers were projected to completely melt in GNP by 2277 (Hall and
Fagre 2003, pp. 137-138).
We determined that the CO2 scenario was likely to better
represent future air temperature conditions and glacier persistence in
GNP for multiple reasons. First, the projected future air temperature
increase of 0.45 [deg]C (by 2100) under the linear temperature-
extrapolation scenario is now projected to occur by 2035 (IPCC 2014, p.
10)--65 years sooner than projected under the linear temperature-
extrapolation. This new projection is based on 11 additional years of
climate data that were not available in 2003. Thus, the linear
temperature-extrapolation model is overly conservative. Second, while
both future air temperature projections (i.e., 3.3 [deg]C and 0.45
[deg]C) from Hall and Fagre 2003 are bracketed by newer projections of
air temperature rise from varying climate scenarios in IPCC 2014 (p.
10), the mean annual air temperature for GNP and the surrounding region
is increasing at 1.8 times the global rate (USGS 2010, p. 1). This
means that the CO2 scenario with its higher future air
temperature projection (i.e., 3.3 [deg]C) is more likely to represent
the likely air temperature change in the GNP area. Indeed, the range of
projected future air temperatures in three of the four global climate
scenarios used in IPCC 2014 (i.e., Representative Concentration
Pathways (RCPs) 4.5, 6.0, and 8.5; IPCC 2014, p. 8) include 3.3 [deg]C,
after taking into account the regional increase of projected air
temperatures of 1.8 times the global rate.
Conversely, even the most conservative (i.e., lowest emissions)
global climate scenario used in IPCC 2014 (RCP 2.6) does not encompass
the air temperature projection (0.45 [deg]C) from the linear
temperature-extrapolation model, after taking into account the regional
increase of projected air temperatures of 1.8 times the global rate.
Third, recent observations of glacier melting rates indicate faster
melt than projected by the CO2 scenario (Muhlfeld et al.
2011, p. 339). Intuitively, this indicates the CO2 scenario
would be expected to better represent future air temperatures and
glacier persistence, relative to the more conservative linear
temperature-extrapolation model. For these reasons, we expect the
CO2 scenario to better represent future air temperature
increase and glacier persistence in GNP than the linear temperature-
extrapolation scenario.
A more recent analysis of Sperry Glacier in GNP estimates this
particular glacier (1 of 25 glaciers remaining from the historical 150
glaciers larger than 25 acres) may persist through 2080, in part due to
annual avalanche inputs from an adjacent cirque wall (Brown et al.
2010, p. 5). We are not aware of any other published studies using more
recent climate scenarios that speak directly to anticipated conditions
of the remaining glaciers in GNP. Thus, we largely rely
[[Page 64216]]
on Hall and Fagre's (2003) projections under the CO2
scenario in our analysis, supplemented with more recent glacier-
specific studies where appropriate (e.g., Brown et al. 2010, entire).
The longevity of glaciers and snowfields in GTNP and the Absaroka/
Beartooth Wilderness is unknown. While most of these glaciers occur at
higher elevations than those in GNP, multiple factors other than
elevation influence glacial retreat rates, including size, latitude,
and aspect (Janke 2007, p. 80). Middle Teton glacier in GTNP is
projected to persist through the year 2100 (Tootle et al. 2010, p. 29);
however, this projection is based on the assumption that future glacial
retreat rates will be the same as those observed during the period of
study (i.e., 1967-2006; Tootle et al. 2010, p. 29). This scenario
appears unlikely because glacier size is an important variable in
glacier retreat rates (Janke 2007, p. 80), whereby the rate of glacial
melting increases as glaciers shrink. Thus, the longevity of glaciers
and snowfields in GTNP and the Absaroka/Beartooth Wilderness is unclear
at this time.
Petersen Glacier in GTNP is a rock glacier that provides meltwater
to one stream occupied by the western glacier stonefly. A rock glacier
is a glacier that is covered by rocks and other debris. The size of
Petersen Glacier is unknown because it is mostly covered in rocks.
However, rock glaciers melt more slowly than alpine glaciers because of
the insulating properties of the debris covering the main glacial ice
mass (Janke 2007, p. 80; Pelto 2000, pp. 39-40; Brenning 2005, p. 237).
Thus, cold-water habitats originating from rock glaciers may be present
longer into the future than from other meltwater sources.
Loss of Other Meltwater Sources
Meltwater in meltwater lednian stonefly and western glacier
stonefly habitat is supplied by glaciers and rock glaciers, as well as
by four other sources: (1) Seasonal snow, (2) perennial snow, (3)
alpine springs, and (4) ice masses (Giersch et al. 2017, p. 2584).
Seasonal snow is that which accumulates and melts seasonally, with the
amount varying year to year depending on annual weather events.
Perennial snow is some portion of a snowfield that does not generally
melt on an annual basis, the volume of which can change over time.
Alpine springs originate from some combination of meltwater from snow,
ice masses or glaciers, and groundwater. Ice masses are smaller than
glaciers and do not actively move as glaciers do.
The sources of meltwater that supply meltwater lednian and western
glacier stonefly habitat are expected to be affected by the changing
climate at different time intervals. In general, we expect all
meltwater sources to decline under a changing climate, given the
relationship between climate and glacial melting (Hall and Fagre 2003,
entire; Fagre 2005, entire) and recent climate observations and
modeling (IPCC 2014, entire). It is likely that seasonal snowpack
levels will be most immediately affected by climate change, as the
frequency of more extreme weather events increases (IPCC 2014, p. 8).
These extremes may result in increased seasonal snowpack in some years
and reduced snowpack in others.
We expect that effects to meltwater lednian stonefly habitats south
of GNP may occur sooner in time than those discussed for GNP. The
timing of snowfield and ice mass disappearance is expected to be before
the majority of glacial melting (i.e., 2030), because perennial
snowpack and ice masses are less dense than glaciers and typically have
smaller volumes of snow and ice. However, alpine springs, at least
those supplemented with groundwater, may continue to be present after
complete glacial melting. Our analysis primarily focuses on effects to
the meltwater lednian stonefly and the western glacier stonefly and
their habitat within GNP because more data are available for those
areas.
Streamflows
Meltwater streams--Declines in meltwater sources are expected to
affect flows in meltwater streams in GNP. Glaciers and other meltwater
sources act as water banks, whose continual melt maintains streamflows
during late summer or drought periods (Hauer et al. 2007, p. 107).
Following glacier loss, declines in streamflow and periodic dewatering
events are expected to occur in meltwater streams in the northern Rocky
Mountains (Hauer et al. 1997, p. 909; Leppi et al. 2012, p. 1105; Clark
et al. 2015, p. 14). In similarly glaciated regions, intermittent
stream flows have been documented following glacial recession and loss
(Robinson et al. 2015, p. 8). By 2030, the modeled distribution of
habitat with the highest likelihood of supporting meltwater lednian
stoneflies is projected to decline by 81 percent in GNP, compared to
the present amount of habitat (Muhlfeld et al. 2011, p. 342).
Desiccation (drying) of these habitats, even periodically, could
eliminate entire populations of the meltwater lednian stonefly and the
western glacier stonefly because the aquatic nymphs need perennial
flowing water to breathe and to mature before reproducing (Stewart and
Harper 1996, p. 217). Given that both stonefly species are believed to
be poor dispersers (similar to other Plecopterans; Baumann and Gaufin
1971, p. 277), recolonization of previously occupied habitats is not
expected following dewatering and extirpation events. Lack of
recolonization by either stonefly species is expected to lead to
further isolation between extant occupied streams.
Currently, 107 streams (of 113) occupied by meltwater lednian
stonefly and 12 streams (of 16) occupied by western glacier stonefly
are supplied by seasonal snowpack, perennial snowpack, ice masses, and
some glaciers (Giersch et al. 2017, p. 2584; Giersch 2017, pers.
comm.). Meltwater from these sources is expected to become inconsistent
by 2030 (Hall and Fagre 2003, p. 137). Although the rate at which flows
will be reduced or at which dewatering events will occur in these
habitats is unclear, we expect, at a minimum, to see decreases in
abundance and distribution of both species as a result. By 2030, we
also anticipate the remaining occupied habitats to be further isolated
relative to current conditions.
Alpine springs--Declines in meltwater sources are also expected to
affect flows in alpine springs, although likely on a longer time scale
than for meltwater streams. Flow from alpine springs in the northern
Rocky Mountains originates from glacial or snow meltwater in part,
sometimes supplemented with groundwater (Hauer et al. 2007, p. 107).
For this reason, some alpine springs are expected to be more climate-
resilient and persist longer than meltwater streams and may serve as
refugia areas for meltwater lednian and western glacier stoneflies, at
least in the near term (Ward 1994, p. 283). However, small aquifers
feeding alpine springs are ultimately replenished by glacial and other
meltwater sources in alpine environments (Hauer et al. 1997, p. 908).
Once glaciers in GNP melt, small aquifer volumes and the
groundwater influence they provide to alpine springs are expected to
decline. Thus by 2030, even flows from alpine springs supplemented with
groundwater are expected to decline (Hauer et al. 1997, p. 910; Clark
et al. 2015, p. 14). This expected pattern of decline is consistent
with observed patterns of low flow from alpine springs in the Rocky
Mountains region and other glaciated regions during years with little
snowpack (Hauer et al. 1997, p. 910; Robinson et al. 2015, p. 9).
Further, following complete melting of glaciers, drying of
[[Page 64217]]
alpine springs in GNP might be expected if annual precipitation fails
to recharge groundwater supplies. Changes in future precipitation
levels due to climate change in the GNP region are projected to range
from relatively unchanged to a small (~10 percent) annual increase
(IPCC 2014, pp. 20-21).
Only 6 streams (out of 113) occupied by meltwater lednian stonefly
and 4 streams (out of 16) occupied by western glacier stonefly
originate from alpine springs. Thus, despite the potential for some
alpine springs to provide refugia for both stonefly species after
glaciers melt, only a few populations may benefit from these potential
refugia.
Glacial lake outlets--Similar to alpine springs, flow from glacial
lake outlets is expected to diminish gradually following the projected
melting of most glaciers around 2030. Glacial lakes are expected to
receive annual inflow from melting snow from the preceding winter,
although the amount by which it may be reduced after complete glacial
melting is unknown. Reductions in flow from glacial lakes are expected
to, at a minimum, decrease the amount of available habitat for both
meltwater lednian and western glacier stoneflies.
One occurrence each of the meltwater lednian stonefly and the
western glacier stonefly occupy a glacial lake outlet (Upper Grinnell
Lake; Giersch et al. 2015, p. 58; Giersch et al. 2017, p. 2588). Thus,
despite the fact that this habitat type may continue to provide refugia
for both stonefly species even after the complete loss of glaciers, a
small percentage of each species may benefit from these potential
refugia. As such, we conclude that habitat degradation in the form of
reduced streamflows due to the effects of climate change will impact 95
percent of streams occupied by meltwater lednian stonefly and 75
percent of streams occupied by western glacier stonefly populations
within the foreseeable future.
Water Temperature
Meltwater streams--Glaciers act as water banks, whose continual
melting maintains suitable water temperatures for meltwater lednian
stonefly and western glacier stonefly during late summer or drought
periods (Hauer et al. 2007, p. 107; USGS 2010). As glaciers melt and
contribute less volume of meltwater to streams, water temperatures are
expected to rise (Hauer et al. 1997, p. 909; Clark et al. 2015, p. 14).
Aquatic invertebrates have specific temperature needs that influence
their distribution (Fagre et al. 1997, p. 763; Lowe and Hauer 1999, pp.
1637, 1640, 1642; Hauer et al. 2007, p. 110); complete glacial melting
may result in an increase in water temperatures above the physiological
limits for survival or optimal growth for the meltwater lednian and
western glacier stoneflies.
As a result of melting glaciers and a lower volume of meltwater
input into streams, we expect upward elevational shifts of meltwater
lednian stonefly and western glacier stonefly, as they track their
optimal thermal preferences. However, both meltwater lednian stonefly
and western glacier stonefly already occupy the most upstream portions
of these habitats and can move upstream only to the extent of the
receding glacier/snowfield. Once the glaciers and snowfields completely
melt, meltwater lednian stoneflies and western glacier stoneflies will
have no physical habitat left to which to migrate upstream. The likely
result of this scenario would be the extirpation of stoneflies from
these habitats. Other indirect effects of warming water temperatures on
both stonefly species could include encroaching aquatic invertebrate
species that may be superior competitors, or changed thermal conditions
that may favor the encroaching species in competitive interactions
between the species (condition-specific competition).
The majority of streams occupied by meltwater lednian stonefly and
one stream occupied by western glacier stonefly are habitats that may
warm significantly by 2030, due to the projected complete melting of
glaciers and snow and ice fields. Increasing water temperatures may be
related to recent distributional declines of western glacier stoneflies
within GNP (Giersch et al. 2015, p. 61).
Alpine springs--Although meltwater contributions to alpine springs
are expected to decline as glaciers and perennial snow melt, water
temperature at the springhead may remain relatively consistent due to
the influence of groundwater, at least in the short term. The
springhead itself may provide refugia for both meltwater lednian and
western glacier stoneflies, although stream reaches below the actual
springhead are expected to exhibit similar increases in water
temperature in response to loss of glacial meltwater as those described
for meltwater streams. However, as described above, some alpine springs
may eventually dry up after glacier and snowpack loss, if annual
precipitation fails to recharge groundwater supplies (Hauer et al.
1997, p. 910; Robinson et al. 2015, p. 9).
Only six streams occupied by the meltwater lednian stonefly (5
percent of total known occupied streams) and four streams occupied by
the western glacier stonefly (25 percent of total known occupied
streams) originate from alpine springs. Thus, despite the fact that
alpine springs may be more thermally stable than meltwater streams and
provide thermal refugia to both the meltwater lednian stonefly and the
western glacier stonefly, a small percentage of each species may
benefit from these potential refugia.
Glacial lake outlets--Similar to alpine springs, glacial lake
outlets are more thermally stable habitats than meltwater streams. This
situation is likely due to the buffering effect of large volumes of
glacial lake water supplying these habitats. It is anticipated that the
buffering effects of glacial lakes will continue to limit increases in
water temperature to outlet stream habitats, even after the loss of
glaciers. However, water temperatures are still expected to increase
over time following complete glacial loss in GNP. It is unknown whether
water temperature increases in glacial lake outlets will exceed
presumed temperature thresholds for meltwater lednian and western
glacier stonefly in the future. However, given the low water
temperatures recorded in habitats where both species have been
collected, even small increases in water temperature of glacial lake
outlets may be biologically significant and detrimental to the
persistence of both species for the reasons described previously.
One stream occupied by meltwater lednian stonefly and the western
glacier stonefly is a glacial lake outlet (Upper Grinnell Lake; Giersch
et al. 2015, p. 58; Giersch et al. 2017). Thus, despite the fact that
glacial lake outlets may be more thermally stable than meltwater
streams and provide thermal refugia to both the meltwater lednian
stonefly and the western glacier stonefly, a small percentage of each
species may benefit from these potential refugia. Consequently, we
conclude that changes in water temperature from climate change are a
threat to most populations of both stonefly species now and into the
future.
Maintenance and Improvement of National Park Infrastructure
Glacier National Park and Grand Teton National Park are managed to
protect natural and cultural resources, and the landscapes within these
parks are relatively pristine. However, both National Parks include a
number of human-built facilities and structures that support visitor
services, recreation, and access, such as the Going-to-the-Sun Road
(which bisects GNP) and numerous visitor centers, trailheads,
overlooks, and lodges (e.g., NPS 2003a, pp. S3, 11). Maintenance and
[[Page 64218]]
improvement of these facilities and structures could conceivably lead
to disturbance of the natural environment.
In the proposed listing rule, we mentioned we were aware of one
water diversion on Logan Creek in GNP that was scheduled to be
retrofitted by the NPS. Logan Creek is occupied by meltwater lednian
stoneflies. Since publication of the proposed listing rule, the water
diversion retrofit project has been redesigned to avoid any dewatering
or instream work in the proposed section of Logan Creek (Aceituno 2017,
pers. comm.). Thus, this project is no longer expected to impact
meltwater lednian stoneflies, and we no longer incorporate this project
into our analysis.
We do not have any information indicating that maintenance and
improvement of other GNP or GTNP facilities and structures is affecting
either meltwater lednian or western glacier stoneflies or their
habitat. While roads and trails provide avenues for recreationists
(primarily hikers) to access backcountry areas, most habitats for both
the meltwater lednian stonefly and the western glacier stonefly are
located in steep, rocky areas that are not easily accessible, even from
backcountry trails. Most documented occurrences of both species are in
remote locations upstream from human-built structures, thereby
precluding any impacts to stonefly habitat from maintenance or
improvement of these structures. Given the above information, we
conclude that maintenance and improvement of National Park facilities
and structures, and the resulting improved access into the backcountry
for recreationists, are unlikely to affect meltwater lednian or western
glacier stonefly or their habitat.
National Park Visitor Impacts
In 2015, GNP hosted 2.3 million visitors (NPS 2015, entire) and, in
2016, GTNP hosted 4.8 million visitors (NPS 2016, entire). A few of the
recent collection sites for the meltwater lednian stonefly (e.g., Logan
and Reynolds Creeks in GNP) are more accessible to the public or
adjacent to popular hiking trails in GNP and GTNP. Theoretically, human
activity (wading) in streams by anglers or hikers could disturb
meltwater lednian stonefly habitat. However, we consider it unlikely
that many National Park visitors would actually wade in stream habitats
where the species has been collected, because the sites are in small,
high-elevation streams situated in rugged terrain, and most would not
be suitable for angling due to the absence of fish. In addition, the
sites in GNP are typically snow covered into late July or August
(Giersch 2010a, pers. comm.), making them accessible for only a few
months annually. We also note that the most accessible collection sites
in Logan Creek near the Logan Pass Visitor Center and the Going-to-the-
Sun Road in GNP are currently closed to public use and entry to protect
resident vegetation (NPS 2010, pp. J5, J24). Collection sites of
western glacier stoneflies in GTNP are also relatively inaccessible to
most visitors. We conclude that impacts to the meltwater lednian and
western glacier stonefly and their habitat from National Park visitors
are not likely to occur.
Wilderness Area Visitor Impacts
Three streams occupied by meltwater lednian stonefly are located in
wilderness areas adjacent to GNP, and six streams occupied by the
western glacier stonefly are located in the Absaroka/Beartooth
Wilderness. Visitor activities in wilderness areas are similar to those
described for National Parks, namely hiking and angling. No
recreational hiking trails are present near the two streams occupied by
meltwater lednian stonefly in the Bob Marshall Wilderness and Great
Bear Wilderness (USFS 2015, p. 1) or near the stream occurring in the
Mission Mountain Tribal Wilderness. There are several hiking trails
near streams occupied by the western glacier stonefly in the Absaroka/
Beartooth Wilderness. Similar to the National Parks, stream reaches
that harbor the meltwater lednian stonefly and the western glacier
stonefly in these wilderness areas are likely fishless due to the high
gradient, so wade anglers are not expected to disturb stonefly habitat.
Given the remote nature of and limited access to meltwater stonefly and
western glacier stonefly habitat in wilderness areas, we do not
anticipate any current or future threats to meltwater lednian
stoneflies or western glacier stoneflies or their respective habitats
from visitor use.
Summary of Factor A
In summary, we expect climate change impacts to fragment or degrade
all habitat types that are currently occupied by meltwater lednian and
western glacier stoneflies, albeit at different rates. Flows in
meltwater streams are expected to be affected first, by becoming
periodically intermittent and warmer. Drying of meltwater streams and
water temperature increases, even periodically, are expected to reduce
available habitat in GNP for the meltwater lednian stonefly by 81
percent by 2030. After 2030, flow reductions and water temperature
increases due to continued warming are expected to further reduce or
degrade remaining refugia habitat (alpine springs and glacial lake
outlets) for both meltwater lednian and western glacier stoneflies. In
GTNP and the Absaroka/Beartooth Wilderness, we expect a similar pattern
of meltwater stream warming and potential drying. Projected habitat
changes are based on observed patterns of flow and water temperature in
similar watersheds elsewhere where glaciers have already melted.
We have observed a declining trend in western glacier stonefly
distribution over the last 50 years, as air temperatures have warmed in
GNP. The addition of newly reported populations of western glacier
stonefly provides increased redundancy for the species across its
range, bringing the total number of known occupied streams to 13 (up
from 4 occupied streams at the time of publishing of the proposed
rule). However, the resiliency of all known populations remains low
because western glacier stonefly inhabit the most upstream reaches of
their meltwater habitats and cannot disperse further upstream if water
temperatures warm beyond their thermal tolerances. We expect the
meltwater lednian stonefly to follow a similar trajectory, given the
similarities between the two stonefly species and their meltwater
habitats. Consequently, we conclude that habitat fragmentation and
degradation resulting from climate change are significantly affecting
both the meltwater lednian and western glacier stoneflies now and into
the future. Given the minimal overlap between stonefly habitat and most
existing infrastructure or backcountry activities (e.g., hiking), we
conclude any impacts from these activities on either the meltwater
lednian stonefly or the western glacier stonefly are low.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
We are not aware of any threats involving the overutilization or
collection of the meltwater lednian or western glacier stonefly for any
commercial, recreational, or educational purposes at this time. We are
aware that specimens of both species are occasionally collected for
scientific purposes to determine their distribution and abundance
(e.g., Baumann and Stewart 1980, pp. 655, 658; NPS 2009; Muhlfeld et
al. 2011, entire; Giersch et al. 2015, entire). However, both species
are comparatively abundant in remaining habitats (e.g., NPS 2009;
Giersch 2016, pers. comm.), and we have no information to suggest that
past, current, or any collections in the near future will result in
population-level
[[Page 64219]]
effects to either species. Consequently, we do not consider
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes to be a threat to the meltwater lednian or western
glacier stonefly now or in the near future.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
We are not aware of any diseases that affect the meltwater lednian
or western glacier stonefly. Therefore, we do not consider disease to
be a threat to these species now or in the near future.
We presume that nymph and adult meltwater lednian and western
glacier stoneflies may occasionally be subject to predation by bird
species such as American dipper (Cinclus mexicanus) or predatory
aquatic insects. Fish and amphibians are not potential predators
because these species do not occur in the stream reaches containing the
meltwater lednian stonefly and the western glacier stonefly. The
American dipper prefers to feed on aquatic invertebrates in fast-
moving, clear alpine streams, and the species is native to GNP. As
such, predation by American dipper on these species would represent a
natural ecological interaction in the GNP (see Synergistic Effects
section below for analysis on potential predation/habitat fragmentation
synergy). Similarly, predation by other aquatic insects would represent
a natural ecological interaction between the species. We have no
evidence that the extent of such predation, if it occurs, represents
any population-level threat to either meltwater lednian or western
glacier stonefly, especially given that densities of individuals within
many of these populations are high. Therefore, we do not consider
predation to be a threat to these species now or in the near future. In
summary, the best available scientific and commercial information does
not indicate that the meltwater lednian or western glacier stonefly is
affected by any diseases, or that natural predation occurs at levels
likely to negatively affect either species at the population level.
Therefore, we do not find disease or predation to be threats to the
meltwater lednian or western glacier stonefly now or in the near
future.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act requires the
Service to take into account ``those efforts, if any, being made by any
State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or
foreign nation, to protect such species. . . .'' We consider relevant
Federal, State, and Tribal laws and regulations when evaluating the
status of the species. A thorough analysis of existing regulatory
mechanisms was carried out and described in the proposed listing rule
(81 FR 68379, October 4, 2016). No local, State, or Federal laws
specifically protect the meltwater lednian or western glacier stonefly.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Small Population Size/Genetic Diversity
Small population size can increase risk of extinction, if genetic
diversity is not maintained (Fausch et al. 2006, p. 23; Allendorf et
al. 1997, entire). Genetic diversity in the meltwater lednian stonefly
is declining and lower than that of two other stonefly species (Jordan
et al. 2017, p. 9). Genetic diversity of western glacier stonefly is
lower than other species in the Zapada genus sampled in GNP (Giersch et
al. 2015, p. 63). It is presumed that low genetic diversity in
meltwater lednian stoneflies and western glacier stoneflies is linked
to small effective population sizes and population isolation (Jordan et
al. 2017, p. 9; Giersch et al. 2015, p. 63). Population isolation can
limit or preclude genetic exchange between populations (Hotaling et al.
2017, p. 9; Fausch et al. 2006, p. 8). However, it is unclear how far
into the future population-level effects from loss of genetic diversity
may appear in the meltwater lednian and western glacier stonefly. Loss
of genetic diversity is typically not an immediate threat even in
isolated populations with small effective population sizes (Palstra and
Ruzzante 2008, p. 3441), but rather is a symptom of deterministic
processes acting on the population (Jamieson and Allendorf 2012, p.
580). In other words, loss of genetic diversity due to small effective
population size typically does not drive species to extinction
(Jamieson and Allendorf 2012, entire); other processes, such as habitat
degradation, have a more immediate and greater impact on species
persistence (Jamieson and Allendorf 2012). We acknowledge that loss of
genetic diversity can occur in small populations; however, in this
case, it appears that projected effects to habitat are the primary
threat to both stonefly species, not a loss of genetic diversity that
may take many years to manifest.
Restricted Range and Stochastic (Random) Events
Narrow endemic species can be at risk of extirpation from random
events such as fire, flooding, or drought. Random events occurring
within the narrow range of endemic species have the potential to
disproportionately affect large numbers of individuals or populations,
relative to a more widely distributed species. A restricted range and
stochastic events may have greater impacts on western glacier stonefly,
compared to meltwater lednian stonefly, because of considerably fewer
populations. However, meltwater lednian stonefly is a narrow endemic as
well and may be at higher risk of random events when compared to a more
widely distributed species. The risk to meltwater lednian and western
glacier stoneflies from fire appears low, given that most alpine
environments within the species' habitats have few trees and little
vegetation to burn. The risk to both species from flooding also appears
low, given the relatively small watershed areas available to capture
and channel precipitation upslope of most stonefly occurrences.
The risk to the meltwater lednian stonefly from drought appears
moderate in the near term because 59 of 113 occupied streams are
supplied by seasonal or perennial snowmelt, which would be expected to
decline first during drought. For the western glacier stonefly, the
threat of drought is also moderate because 6 of 16 occupied streams are
likely to be affected by variations in seasonal precipitation and
snowpack. The risk of drought in the longer term (after 2030 and when
complete loss of glaciers is projected) appears high for both stonefly
species. Once glaciers melt, drought or extended drought could result
in dewatering events in some habitats. Dewatering events would likely
extirpate entire populations almost instantaneously. Natural
recolonization of habitats affected by drought is unlikely, given the
presumed poor dispersal abilities of both stonefly species and general
isolation of populations relative to one another (Hauer et al. 2007,
pp. 108-110). Thus, we conclude that drought (a stochastic event) will
be a threat to both the meltwater lednian stonefly and the western
glacier stonefly in the future.
Summary of Factor E
The effect of small population size and loss of genetic diversity
does not appear to be having immediate impacts on the meltwater lednian
stonefly or the western glacier stonefly, given the high densities of
individuals within many streams and that potential effects from loss of
genetic diversity would likely occur beyond the timeframe in which
habitat-related threats are expected to occur. However, the restricted
range of the meltwater lednian and western glacier stonefly make both
species vulnerable to the stochastic threat of
[[Page 64220]]
drought, which is expected to negatively affect both species within the
future.
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
Based on information received during the peer review process and
public comment periods, we made the following substantive changes
(listed below) to the Background portion of the preamble to this final
listing rule. In addition, we have added species-specific provisions to
50 CFR 17.47 as a result of new rulemaking actions that pertain to the
listing of threatened species; these rulemaking actions and the
subsequent additions to this rule are described in section II of the
preamble (see below), and the regulatory provisions are set forth at
the end of this document in the rule language. The prohibitions
provided under this 4(d) rule do not differ from those proposed for the
species; however, the manner in which they are implemented (via a
species-specific rule rather than referring to the ``blanket'' rule at
50 CFR 17.31) has changed.
1. We incorporated new distribution information for the meltwater
lednian stonefly and western glacier stonefly. This information became
available to us after the proposed listing rule was published and
included a small range expansion for the meltwater lednian stonefly
(southwestern Alberta, Canada) and large range expansion for western
glacier stonefly of about 500 km (311 mi) south from their previously
known range, to now include multiple streams in GTNP in Wyoming and the
Absaroka/Beartooth Wilderness in Montana. This new information updated
the number of known streams occupied by western glacier stonefly from 4
to 16. This information was incorporated into the analyses under
Factors A and E.
2. We incorporated genetics information from a new study by
Hotaling et al. 2017. This new study confirmed through genetic analysis
that the western glacier stonefly was present in multiple streams in
GTNP in Wyoming and the Absaroka/Beartooth Wilderness in Montana. This
information represents the most current assessment of genetic
information for western glacier and meltwater lednian stonefly and was
not available when the proposed listing rule was published. This new
information was incorporated into the analyses under Factors A and E.
3. We incorporated information on how rock glaciers might respond
to climate change under Factor A. Rock glaciers are debris-covered
glaciers that are expected to melt more slowly than normal glaciers.
4. We incorporated information on site-specific differences in
geology, glacial persistence, and stonefly density between GNP and
GTNP. This information clarified differences in habitat and stonefly
density across the range of the western glacier stonefly and was
incorporated into our analysis under Factor A.
5. We updated literature citations throughout Factors A and E. We
updated several pieces of literature that were originally cited as
unpublished reports, but were subsequently published in scientific
journals after the proposed listing rule published in the Federal
Register. We incorporated one study on meltwater lednian stonefly
genetics that was not cited in the proposed rule (Jordan et al. 2017)
in Factor E. We also incorporated two additional studies (Clark et al.
2015; Leppi et al. 2012) on the projected effects of climate change on
stream runoff in Factor A.
6. We clarified minor inaccuracies related to stonefly distribution
and dispersal capability. This included clarifying areas of
uncertainty.
7. We incorporated potential effects of population isolation into
our analysis of Factor E. We added a paragraph discussing the potential
effects of population isolation and reduced genetic diversity on
stonefly viability.
8. We changed the terminology used to describe the distribution of
the two species. We used the term ``populations'' in the proposed
listing rule to reference groups of stoneflies in certain areas that we
believed likely constituted an interbreeding population. However, there
is no empirical evidence to support the use of the term ``population,''
so we now refer instead to the number of distinct streams that are
occupied by both stonefly species when discussing their distribution
and current and future status. The terminology change was incorporated
into our analyses under Factors A and E.
9. We reevaluated whether critical habitat for both stonefly
species is prudent. Our October 4, 2016, proposed rule included a
determination that critical habitat for the meltwater lednian stonefly
and western glacier stonefly was prudent but not determinable at that
time (81 FR 68379). Since that time, the Service finalized regulations
related to listing species and designating critical habitat (84 FR
45020, August 27, 2019), which revised the regulations that implement
section 4 of the Act and clarify circumstances in which critical
habitat may be found not prudent. Regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)
provide the circumstances when critical habitat may be not prudent, and
we have determined that a designation of critical habitat for these
species is not prudent, as discussed further below.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the proposed rule published on October 4, 2016 (81 FR 68379), we
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the
proposal by December 5, 2016. We also contacted appropriate Federal and
State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal.
Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the
Kalispell InterLake, Great Falls Tribune, Bozeman Chronicle, Billings
Gazette, and Jackson Hole News and Guide. On October 31, 2017, we
reopened the comment period on our proposed listing rule to allow the
public to comment on new information regarding the known distribution
of western glacier stonefly (82 FR 50360). We did not receive any
requests for a public hearing. All substantive information provided
during both comment periods has either been incorporated directly into
this final determination or addressed below.
Peer Reviewer Comments
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from seven knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with
stoneflies and their habitat, biological needs, and threats. We
received responses from three of the peer reviewers.
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for
substantive issues and new information regarding the listing of
meltwater lednian stonefly and western glacier stonefly. The peer
reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions and
provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to
improve the final rule. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the
following summary and incorporated into this final rule as appropriate.
(1) Comment: Several peer reviewers noted that new genetics
information (i.e., Hotaling et al. 2017) for meltwater lednian and
western glacier stoneflies was now available that was not available
when the proposed listing rule was published.
Our Response: We are aware of the genetic analysis by Hotaling et
al., and we have fully incorporated their findings and conclusions into
this final
[[Page 64221]]
listing rule in the Factors A and E analyses.
(2) Comment: One peer reviewer noted that at least one stream
occupied by western glacier stonefly originates from a rock glacier.
Since rock glaciers are covered by debris, their rate of melting may
differ from those glaciers not covered by debris. The reviewer
suggested we add a brief description of this potential phenomenon.
Our Response: We added a paragraph to this final listing rule
discussing this phenomenon and its implications for western glacier
stonefly habitat in our Factor A analyses.
(3) Comment: One peer reviewer noted that the Service did not
consider differences in geology, glacial persistence, and stonefly
density between GNP and GTNP in the proposed rule.
Our Response: We made several clarifications and added information
on the suggested topics in this final listing rule in our Factor A
analyses.
(4) Comment: Several peer reviewers noted that newer literature
citations were available to support statements made in the proposed
listing rule with regard to stonefly genetics and population isolation.
Our Response: We incorporated the newer literature citations (i.e.,
Giersch 2017, pers. comm.; Giersch et al. 2015; Giersch et al. 2017;
Jordan et al. 2017; Hotaling et al. 2017) and updated all stonefly
occurrence data with the most current information from Giersch et al.
2017 in Background and our Factors A and E analyses.
(5) Comment: Several peer reviewers noted inaccuracies in the
proposed listing rule in regard to how the Service described stonefly
distribution and dispersal capability.
Our Response: We clarified areas of uncertainty with respect to
stonefly distribution and dispersal capability. The Service also added
several clarifying statements on stonefly distribution to highlight
areas of uncertainty in Background and our Factors A and E analyses.
(6) Comment: One peer reviewer noted that the Service did not fully
account for the potential effects of population isolation in our
threats analysis.
Our Response: We added a paragraph on the potential effects of
population isolation, including recent genetics information from Jordan
et al. 2017, in our Factor E analyses.
(7) Comment: Several peer reviewers noted that we used the term
``population'' in the proposed listing rule, but that it was never
defined or there was no explanation of how the number of occupied
streams translated to the number of stonefly populations.
Our Response: We deleted any reference to a specific number of
stonefly populations in the final listing rule. Instead, we report the
number of streams known to be occupied by meltwater lednian and western
glacier stoneflies. This approach is consistent with the terminology
and methodology used in Giersch et al. 2017, which is the best
available science on the status and distribution of both stonefly
species. These changes were made in Background and in our Factors A and
E analyses.
Comments From States
(8) Comment: A comment from one State expressed concern that the
genetic information on western glacier stonefly relied upon in the
proposed listing rule was incomplete. The State provided evidence that
a more robust genetic analysis was under way, the results (contained in
Hotaling et al. 2017) of which would aid in highlighting the
distinctness or relatedness among western glacier stoneflies across
their known range.
Our Response: We were aware of the ongoing genetic analysis by
Hotaling et al., and now that the results are available, we have fully
incorporated their findings/conclusions into the final listing rule in
our Factors A and E analyses.
(9) Comment: One State provided the results of a recent genetics
study (Hotaling et al. 2017) that confirmed western glacier stonefly
presence in GTNP and the Absaroka/Beartooth Wilderness. The State did
not support listing the western glacier stonefly. Based on the results
of the provided information that the species was more widespread than
previously believed, the State suggested this information could
indicate the species is likely present in more areas to the north and
south of where it is currently known.
Our Response: We incorporated the results of Hotaling et al. 2017
into this final listing rule. A review of satellite imagery indicates
there may be some patches of permanent snow/ice (and thus potential
western glacier stonefly habitat) in the Wyoming and Wind River ranges
of Wyoming, south of Grand Teton National Park. However, we are not
aware of any surveys that have been conducted in that area. The USGS
has sampled in some areas between Grand Teton National Park/Beartooth
and Glacier National Park, but have not documented western glacier
stoneflies in that area. An increase in western glacier stonefly
redundancy across their range is expected to help the species survive
catastrophic events. However, the primary threat to western glacier
stonefly habitat is habitat degradation and fragmentation from climate
change. We expect climate change to have similar, negative effects on
western glacier stonefly habitat rangewide. Thus, increased redundancy,
in this case, is not expected to translate into increased resiliency or
increased species viability. In addition, we must base our listing
determination on the best available scientific and commercial
information, and we have no information that western glacier stonefly
occur in other areas than where the species is currently known.
Public Comments
(10) Comment: One public commenter noted an interest in seeing more
information obtained and reviewed in regard to obtaining a better
understanding of the true extent of stonefly habitat, the consequences
of these species being listed on GNP's visitation and infrastructure,
and what measures may be taken on a local level to help these species
survive and grow in order to prevent economic and other hardships that
come with listing.
Our Response: According to the Act, we must base our determination
on the best available scientific information. We included the results
of the most recent status review of meltwater lednian and western
glacier stonefly (i.e., Giersch et al. 2017) in this final listing rule
in our Factor A analyses. The Service is not allowed to consider
economic impacts in our determination on whether to list a species
under the Act. However, we believe that those impacts would be minimal,
given the limited overlap of stonefly habitats with areas of visitor
use and park infrastructure. Conservation measures are addressed in
this document below under ``Available Conservation Measures.''
(11) Comment: One commenter expressed support for listing both
stonefly species and provided a link to a scientific journal article
describing a 75 percent decline in winged insects in Germany over the
past 27 years.
Our Response: The scientific information in the provided journal
article indicates a long-term decline in a suite of winged insects in
Germany. However, the insects in this study did not have an aquatic
life-history component like both meltwater lednian stonefly and western
glacier stonefly, and occupied much different habitat types. Further,
climate variables were not found to be significant drivers of the
documented insect biomass decline. Thus, we did not find the results
from the provided study informative to trend
[[Page 64222]]
observations of stoneflies. Therefore, we did not include information
from the provided study in our assessment of either stonefly species.
Rather, we considered studies specific to meltwater lednian stonefly,
western glacier stonefly, and other more closely related species in
similar geographic areas to be the best available scientific
information on which to base our assessment.
(12) Comment: Two joint commenters expressed support for listing
both stonefly species and provided multiple scientific journal articles
for the Service to assess.
Our Response: Of the 10 scientific articles provided, 3 (Jordan et
al. 2016; Giersch et al. 2016; Treanor et al. 2013) were already
included and cited in the proposed listing rule. Three of the other
articles provided (Hotaling et al. 2017a; Clark et al. 2015; Leppi et
al. 2012) were added to the final listing rule in our Factors A and E
analyses. The remaining four articles (Hotaling et al. 2017b; Wuebbles
et al. 2017; Chang and Hansen 2015; Al-Chokhacky et al. 2013) were
broad in nature (large-scale climate information relevant to other
ecosystems and species) and were not included in the final listing rule
because we had finer scale information more relevant to western glacier
stonefly and meltwater lednian stonefly and their habitats.
Determination of Western Glacier Stonefly and Meltwater Lednian
Stonefly Status
Status Throughout All of Its Range
We find that the meltwater lednian stonefly is likely to become
endangered throughout all of its range within the foreseeable future.
The meltwater lednian stonefly occupies a relatively narrow range of
alpine habitats that are expected to become fragmented and degraded by
climate change, based on empirical glacier melting rates. Meltwater
stonefly habitat is likely to be impacted by several factors that are
expected to reduce the overall viability of the species to the point
that it meets the definition of a threatened species.
We also find that the western glacier stonefly is likely to become
endangered throughout all of its range within the foreseeable future.
Similar to meltwater lednian stonefly, the western glacier stonefly
occupies a relatively narrow range of alpine habitats that are expected
to become fragmented and degraded by climate change, based on empirical
glacier melting rates. In addition, decreasing distribution of western
glacier stonefly has been documented in GNP. Western glacier stonefly
habitat is likely to be impacted by several factors that are expected
to reduce the overall viability of the species to the point that it
meets the definition of a threatened species. Therefore, on the basis
of the best available scientific and commercial information, we are
listing the meltwater lednian stonefly and western glacier stonefly as
threatened species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the
Act.
We find that an endangered species status is not appropriate for
the meltwater lednian stonefly because the species is not currently in
danger of extinction as it faces relatively low near-term risk of
extinction. Although the effects of climate change and drought are
currently affecting, and expected to continue affecting, the alpine
habitats occupied by the meltwater lednian stonefly, meltwater sources
are expected to persist in the form of alpine springs and glacial lake
outlets after the projected melting of most glaciers in GNP by 2030.
Densities and estimated abundance of the meltwater lednian stonefly are
currently relatively high. In addition, some habitats that are supplied
by seasonal snowpack continue to be occupied by meltwater lednian
stonefly. These findings suggest that, as climate change continues to
impact stonefly habitat, some populations will likely persist in
refugia areas at least through the foreseeable future.
We also find that an endangered species status is not appropriate
for the western glacier stonefly because the species is not currently
in danger of extinction as it faces relatively low near-term risk of
extinction. Although the effects of climate change and drought are
currently affecting, and expected to continue affecting, the alpine
habitats occupied by the western glacier stonefly, meltwater sources
are expected to persist in the form of alpine springs and glacial lake
outlets after the projected melting of most glaciers in GNP by 2030.
Although only 16 streams are known to be occupied by western glacier
stonefly, densities and estimated abundance of the western glacier
stonefly are currently relatively high in many streams. These findings
suggest that, as climate change continues to impact stonefly habitat,
some populations will likely persist in refugia areas at least through
the foreseeable future.
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we
have determined that habitat fragmentation and degradation in the form
of declining streamflows and increasing water temperatures resulting
from climate change are currently affecting habitat for the meltwater
lednian stonefly and the western glacier stonefly (Factor A). Most
glaciers in GNP are expected to melt by 2030, based on past empirical
melting rates and projections of future air temperature increases in a
region that is warming at 1.8 times the global rate. Habitat with a
high probability of occupancy for the meltwater lednian stonefly is
modeled to decrease 81 percent by 2030 (Muhlfeld et al. 2011, p. 342).
Drought is also expected to affect habitat occupied by meltwater
lednian stonefly and western glacier stonefly that is supplied by those
meltwater sources (Factor E). These threats and responses are
reasonably foreseeable because some are already evident and we have no
indication that the rate of climate change will slow within the
foreseeable future. As a result of this anticipated loss of habitat,
only a few refugia streams and springs are expected to persist in the
longer term. Recolonization of habitats where known occurrences of
either species are extirpated is not anticipated, given the presumed
poor dispersal abilities of both species. Thus, after assessing the
best available information, we conclude that meltwater lednian stonefly
and the western glacier stonefly are not currently in danger of
extinction, but are likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout all of their ranges.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. Where the best available information allows the Services to
determine a status for the species rangewide, that determination should
be given conclusive weight because a rangewide determination of status
more accurately reflects the species' degree of imperilment and better
promotes the purposes of the Act. Under this reading, we should first
consider whether the species warrants listing ``throughout all'' of its
range and proceed to conduct a ``significant portion of its range''
analysis if, and only if, a species does not qualify for listing as
either an endangered or a threatened species according to the
``throughout all'' language. We note that the court in Desert Survivors
v. Department of the Interior, No. 16-cv-01165-JCS, 2018 WL 4053447
(N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), did not address this issue, and our
conclusion is therefore
[[Page 64223]]
consistent with the opinion in that case. Because we have determined
that the meltwater lednian stonefly and the western glacier stonefly
are likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all of their ranges, we find it unnecessary to
proceed to an evaluation of potentially significant portions of the
range.
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the meltwater lednian stonefly and the
western glacier stonefly meet the definition of threatened species.
Therefore, we are listing the meltwater lednian stonefly and the
western glacier stonefly as threatened species in accordance with
sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed
species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the
prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline
within 30 days of when the species is listed and preparation of a draft
and final recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate
implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to
be used to develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done
to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that set a trigger for review of the five
factors that control whether a species remains endangered or may be
downlisted or delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress.
Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate
their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of
implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species
experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and
stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When
completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final
recovery plan will be available on our website (http://www.fws.gov/endangered) or from our Montana Ecological Services Field Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribal, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
Following publication of this final listing rule, funding for
recovery actions will be available from a variety of sources, including
Federal budgets, State programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal
landowners, the academic community, and nongovernmental organizations.
In addition, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State(s) of Montana
and Wyoming will be eligible for Federal funds to implement management
actions that promote the protection or recovery of the meltwater
lednian stonefly and/or western glacier stonefly. Information on our
grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found
at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in
recovery efforts for the meltwater lednian stonefly and western glacier
stonefly. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on
these species whenever it becomes available and any information you may
have for recovery planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is listed as an endangered or
threatened species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is
designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation
provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(2)
of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they
authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or destroy
or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may
affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible
Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering
activities on Federal lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service
(Flathead and Custer/Gallatin National Forests) and NPS (GNP, GTNP);
issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act permits by the Army Corps of
Engineers; and construction and maintenance of roads or highways by the
Federal Highway Administration.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on
proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the species being
listed. The discussion below about the 4(d) rule complies with our
policy.
II. Final Rule Issued Under Section 4(d) of the Act
Background
Section 4(d) of the Act states that the ``Secretary shall issue
such regulations as he deems necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation'' of species listed as threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court
has noted that very similar statutory language demonstrates a large
degree of deference to the agency (see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592
(1988)). Conservation is defined in the Act to mean ``the use of all
methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered
species or threatened
[[Page 64224]]
species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to [the
Act] are no longer necessary.'' Additionally, section 4(d) of the Act
states that the Secretary ``may by regulation prohibit with respect to
any threatened species any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1), in the
case of fish or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the case of plants.''
Thus, regulations promulgated under section 4(d) of the Act provide the
Secretary with wide latitude of discretion to select appropriate
provisions tailored to the specific conservation needs of the
threatened species. The statute grants particularly broad discretion to
the Service when adopting the prohibitions under section 9.
The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion
under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the
conservation of a species. For example, courts have approved rules
developed under section 4(d) that include a taking prohibition for
threatened wildlife, or include a limited taking prohibition (see Alsea
Valley Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or.
2007); Washington Environmental Council v. National Marine Fisheries
Service, 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D. Wash. 2002)). Courts have
also approved 4(d) rules that do not address all of the threats a
species faces (see State of Louisiana v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir.
1988)). As noted in the legislative history when the Act was initially
enacted, ``once an animal is on the threatened list, the Secretary has
an almost infinite number of options available to him with regard to
the permitted activities for those species. He may, for example, permit
taking, but not importation of such species, or he may choose to forbid
both taking and importation but allow the transportation of such
species,'' (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973).
In our proposed rule to list the meltwater lednian stonefly and the
western glacier stonefly published on October 4, 2016 (81 FR 68379), we
referenced a section of the regulation that provided threatened species
with the same protections as endangered species also known as ``blanket
rules'' (50 CFR 17.31). The Service has since published regulations on
August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44753), amending 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.71 that
state ``the blanket rules will no longer be in place, but the Secretary
will still be required to make a decision about what regulations to put
in place for the species.'' While the Service always had the ability to
promulgate species-specific 4(d) rules for threatened species, moving
forward we will promulgate a species-specific 4(d) rule for each
species that we determine meets the definition of a threatened species.
In the preamble to our 2016 proposed rule, we determined that a rule
that included the prohibitions set forth in 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered
species would be necessary and advisable for the conservation of the
meltwater lednian stonefly and the western glacier stonefly.
Consequently, we are promulgating a species-specific 4(d) rule that
outlines the protections that were described in the 2016 proposed rule;
see Provisions of the 4(d) Rule, below.
Although the statute does not require the Service to make a
``necessary and advisable'' finding with respect to the adoption of
specific prohibitions under section 9, we find that this rule as a
whole satisfies the requirement in section 4(d) of the Act to issue
regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation of the meltwater lednian stonefly and the western glacier
stonefly. As discussed under Summary of Biological Status and Threats,
the Service has concluded that the meltwater lednian stonefly and the
western glacier stonefly are at risk of extinction within the
foreseeable future due to loss of habitat due to glacier melting. The
provisions of this species-specific 4(d) rule would promote
conservation of the meltwater lednian stonefly and the western glacier
stonefly by prohibiting take of both species. The provisions of this
rule are one of many tools that the Service would use to promote the
conservation of the meltwater lednian stonefly and the western glacier
stonefly.
Provisions of the 4(d) Rule
This 4(d) rule will provide for the conservation of the western
glacier stonefly and meltwater lednian stonefly by prohibiting the
following activities, except as otherwise authorized or permitted:
Importing or exporting; take; possession and other acts with unlawfully
taken specimens; delivering, receiving, transporting, or shipping in
interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or
selling or offering for sale in interstate or foreign commerce.
As discussed under Summary of Biological Status and Threats
(above), degraded habitats resulting from reduced flows and increased
water temperatures (Factor A) are affecting the status of the meltwater
lednian stonefly and the western glacier stonefly. Some activities
could occur within the range of the species that have the potential to
impact individual meltwater lednian stoneflies and the western glacier
stoneflies, including: Trail construction and maintenance, road
maintenance and repair, etc. Regulating these activities may help
preserve the species' remaining populations, slow its rate of decline,
and decrease synergistic, negative effects from other stressors.
Under the Act, ``take'' means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any
such conduct. Some of these provisions have been further defined in
regulation at 50 CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or otherwise, by
direct and indirect impacts, intentionally or incidentally. Regulating
incidental and intentional take may reduce effects to individual
stonefly life stages comprising the species' remaining populations.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities,
including those described above, involving threatened wildlife under
certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50
CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued
for the following purposes: Scientific purposes, to enhance propagation
or survival, for economic hardship, for zoological exhibition, for
educational purposes, for incidental taking, or for special purposes
consistent with the purposes of the Act. There are also certain
statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections
9 and 10 of the Act.
The Service recognizes the special and unique relationship with our
State natural resource agency partners in contributing to conservation
of listed species. State agencies often possess scientific data and
valuable expertise on the status and distribution of endangered,
threatened, and candidate species of wildlife and plants. State
agencies, because of their authorities and their close working
relationships with local governments and landowners, are in a unique
position to assist the Services in implementing all aspects of the Act.
In this regard, section 6 of the Act provides that the Services shall
cooperate to the maximum extent practicable with the States in carrying
out programs authorized by the Act. Therefore, any qualified employee
or agent of a State conservation agency that is a party to a
cooperative agreement with the Service in accordance with section 6(c)
of the Act, who is designated by his or her agency for such purposes,
would be able to conduct activities designed to conserve western
glacier stonefly and meltwater lednian stonefly that may result in
otherwise prohibited take without additional authorization. The State
of Montana
[[Page 64225]]
covers the meltwater lednian stonefly and the western glacier stonefly
in Montana's State Wildlife Action Plan (Montana Fish, Wildlife, and
Parks 2015, p. 439).
Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule would change in any way the
recovery planning provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the
consultation requirements under section 7 of the Act, or the ability of
the Service to enter into partnerships for the management and
protection of the western glacier stonefly and meltwater lednian
stonefly. However, interagency cooperation may be further streamlined
through planned programmatic consultations for the species between
Federal agencies and the Service.
III. Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e.,
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g.,
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically,
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7(a)(2) of the
Act through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in
consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat
does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness,
reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does
not allow the government or public to access private lands. Such
designation does not require implementation of restoration, recovery,
or enhancement measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner
requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may
affect a listed species or critical habitat, the consultation
requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even in the
event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the obligation
of the Federal action agency and the landowner is not to restore or
recover the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent
alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those
physical or biological features that occur in specific areas, we focus
on the specific features that are essential to support the life-history
needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water
characteristics, soil type, geological features, prey, vegetation,
symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a single habitat
characteristic, or a more complex combination of habitat
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. When designating critical habitat, the Secretary will first
evaluate areas occupied by the species. The Secretary will only
consider unoccupied areas to be essential where a critical habitat
designation limited to geographical areas occupied by the species would
be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. In addition,
for an unoccupied area to be considered essential, the Secretary must
determine that there is a reasonable certainty both that the area will
contribute to the conservation of the species and that the area
contains one or more of those physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)),
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that the Secretary shall designate
critical habitat at the time the species is determined to be an
endangered species or threatened species to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the
Secretary may, but is not required to, determine that a designation
would not be prudent in the following circumstances:
(i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be
[[Page 64226]]
expected to increase the degree of such threat to the species;
(ii) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
(iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States;
(iv) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat; or
(v) After analyzing the best scientific data available, the
Secretary otherwise determines that designation of critical habitat
would not be prudent.
In our proposed rule to list the meltwater lednian stonefly and
western glacier stonefly (81 FR 68379, October 4, 2016), we determined
that critical habitat was prudent, but not determinable at that time.
That determination regarding prudency was based on our regulations (50
CFR 424.12(a)(1)) as they existed at that time in 2016. Since that
time, the Service published regulations related to listing species and
designating critical habitat (84 FR 45020, August 27, 2019), which
revised the regulations that implement section 4 of the Act and clarify
circumstances in which designation of critical habitat may be found to
be not prudent, as explained above. Given the revisions to the critical
habitat regulations, we have reevaluated our determination on whether
designation of critical habitat for these species is prudent.
As explained above, habitats for both the meltwater lednian
stonefly and the western glacier stonefly originate from meltwater
sources that will be impacted by any projected warming, including
glaciers, rock glaciers, and small icefields, perennial and seasonal
snowpack, alpine springs, and glacial lake outlets (Hauer et al. 2007,
p. 107; Giersch et al. 2017, p. 2584). The sole threats to meltwater
lednian stonefly and western glacier stonefly are the fragmentation and
degradation of these habitats in the form of declining streamflows and
increasing water temperatures resulting from climate change. Drought is
also expected to affect habitat occupied by meltwater lednian stonefly
and western glacier stonefly that is supplied by meltwater sources.
Given the remote nature of these species' alpine habitats and extremely
limited human activity in these areas (see Habitat and Factor A
discussions above), we found no other habitat-based threats to either
species. There are no management actions resulting from consultations
under section 7(a)(2) of the Act that could address the impacts of
climate change and drought on the meltwater sources that supply the
habitats for these species (see the Service's May 14, 2008 Director's
Memo on Expectations for Consultations on Actions that Would Emit
Greenhouse Gases, which notes that section 7 consultation would not be
required to address impacts of a facility's greenhouse gas emissions).
For the meltwater lednian stonefly and western glacier stonefly, we
find that threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes that
cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from
consultations on these species under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
Therefore, in accordance with 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1), we determine that
critical habitat is not prudent for the meltwater lednian stonefly and
western glacier stonefly.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to tribes. As part of our responsibilities to
communicate meaningfully and work directly with Tribal Governments, we
informed the Confederated Kootenai Salish Tribe of our intent to
conduct a status review on meltwater lednian stonefly, and solicited
any information the Tribe may have regarding the sole population of
meltwater lednian stonefly occurring in Tribal wilderness on
Confederated Kootenai Salish Tribe land. The Tribe did not provide any
information in response to our request.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov/ in Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-
2016-0086 and upon request from the Montana Ecological Services Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the
Montana Ecological Services Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding entries for ``Stonefly, meltwater
lednian'' and ``Stonefly, western glacier'' to the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical order under ``Insects'' to read
as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
[[Page 64227]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status and applicable
rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Stonefly, meltwater lednian..... Lednia tumana...... Wherever found..... T 84 FR [Insert
Federal Register
page where the
document begins];
11/21/2019; 50
CFR 17.47(c).\4d\
Stonefly, western glacier....... Zapada glacier..... Wherever found..... T 84 FR [Insert
Federal Register
page where the
document begins];
11/21/2019; 50
CFR 17.47(c).\4d\
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.47 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. [thinsp]17.47 Special rules--insects.
* * * * *
(c)Western glacier stonefly (Zapada glacier) and meltwater lednian
stonefly (Lednia tumana)--(1) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions
that apply to endangered wildlife also apply to western glacier
stonefly and meltwater lednian stonefly except as provided under
paragraph (c)(2) of this section and Sec. Sec. 17.4 and 17.5. It is
unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit,
or cause to be committed, any of the following acts in regard to these
species:
(i) Import or export, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(b).
(ii) Take, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(c)(1).
(iii) Possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens, as
set forth at Sec. 17.21(d)(1).
(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial
activity, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(e).
(v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(f).
(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In regard to this species, you
may:
(i) Conduct activities as authorized by a permit under Sec. 17.32.
(ii) Take, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(c)(3) and (4) for endangered
wildlife.
(iii) Possess and engage in other acts, as set forth at Sec.
17.21(d)(2) for endangered wildlife.
(iv) In addition to any other provisions of this part, any employee
or agent of the Service, of the National Marine Fisheries Service, or
of a State conservation agency that is operating a conservation program
pursuant to the terms of a cooperative agreement with the Service in
accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, who is designated by that
agency for such purposes, may, when acting in the course of official
duties, take those threatened species of wildlife that are covered by
an approved cooperative agreement to carry out conservation programs.
Dated: November 13, 2019.
Margaret E. Everson,
Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising
the Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-25195 Filed 11-20-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P