[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18684-18701]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7827]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2011-0016; MO 92210-0-0008-B2]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding 
on a Petition To List the Bearmouth Mountainsnail, Byrne Resort 
Mountainsnail, and Meltwater Lednian Stonefly as Endangered or 
Threatened

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
12-month finding on a petition to list the Bearmouth mountainsnail 
(Oreohelix species 3), Byrne Resort mountainsnail (Oreohelix species 
31), and meltwater lednian stonefly (Lednia tumana) as endangered or 
threatened, and to designate critical habitat under the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After review of all available 
scientific and commercial information, we find that listing the 
Bearmouth mountainsnail and the Byrne Resort mountainsnail is not 
warranted because neither constitutes a valid taxon; therefore, they 
are not considered to be listable entities under the Act. We find that 
listing of the meltwater lednian stonefly is warranted. However, 
currently listing of the meltwater lednian stonefly is precluded by 
higher priority actions to amend the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication of this 12-month petition 
finding, we will add the meltwater lednian stonefly to our candidate 
species list. We will develop a proposed rule to list the meltwater 
lednian stonefly as our priorities allow. We will make any 
determination on critical habitat during development of the proposed 
listing rule. During any interim period, we will address the status of 
the candidate taxon through our annual Candidate Notice of Review 
(CNOR).

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on April 5, 
2011.

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R6-ES-2011-0016. Supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Field Office, 585 Shepard Way, 
Helena, MT

[[Page 18685]]

59601. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or 
questions concerning this finding to the above street address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Wilson, Field Supervisor, Montana 
Field Office (see ADDRESSES); by telephone at 406-449-5225; or by 
facsimile at 406-449-5339. Persons who use a telecommunications device 
for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service 
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires 
that, for any petition containing substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that listing the species may be warranted, we 
make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition. 
In this finding, we determine that the petitioned action is: (a) Not 
warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but immediate proposal of a 
regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other 
pending proposals to determine whether species are endangered or 
threatened, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove 
qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we 
treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be 
warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such 
finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 
months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal 
Register.

Previous Federal Actions

    Federal action for the Bearmouth mountainsnail, Byrne Resort 
mountainsnail, and meltwater lednian stonefly began on July 30, 2007, 
after we received a petition dated July 24, 2007, from Forest Guardians 
(now WildEarth Guardians) requesting that the Service: (1) Consider all 
full species in our mountain-prairie region ranked as G1 or G1G2 by the 
organization NatureServe, except those that are currently listed, 
proposed for listing, or candidates for listing; and (2) list each 
species as either endangered or threatened (Forest Guardians 2007, pp. 
1-37). The petition incorporated all analyses, references, and 
documentation provided by NatureServe in its online database at http://www.natureserve.org/. We acknowledged the receipt of the petition in a 
letter to the Forest Guardians, dated August 24, 2007 (Slack 2007, p. 
1). In that letter we stated, based on preliminary review, we found no 
compelling evidence to support an emergency listing for any of the 
species covered by the petition, and that we planned work on the 
petition in Fiscal Year (FY) 2008.
    On March 19, 2008, WildEarth Guardians filed a complaint (1:08-CV-
472-CKK) indicating that the Service failed to comply with its 
statutory duty to make 90-day findings on their two multiple species 
petitions in two of the Service's administrative regions--one for the 
mountain-prairie region, and one for the Southwest region (WildEarth 
Guardians v. Kempthorne 2008, case 1:08-CV-472-CKK). We subsequently 
published two initial 90-day findings on January 6, 2009 (74 FR 419), 
and February 5, 2009 (74 FR 6122), identifying species for which we 
were then making negative 90-day findings, and species for which we 
were still working on a determination. The Bearmouth mountainsnail, 
Byrne Resort mountainsnail, and meltwater lednian stonefly were not 
addressed in either 90-day finding published in 2009, as we were still 
conducting our analyses of these mountainsnails and the stonefly. On 
March 13, 2009, the Service and WildEarth Guardians filed a stipulated 
settlement in the U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, agreeing 
that the Service would submit to the Federal Register a finding as to 
whether WildEarth Guardians' petition presented substantial information 
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for 38 mountain-
prairie region species by August 9, 2009 (WildEarth Guardians v. 
Salazar 2009, case 1:08-CV-472-CKK).
    On August 18, 2009, we published a 90-day finding for 38 mountain-
prairie region species (74 FR 41649). In that finding, we found that 
the petition presented substantial information to indicate that listing 
of Bearmouth mountainsnail and Byrne Resort mountainsnail may be 
warranted due to the present or threatened destruction, modification, 
or curtailment of their habitat or range resulting from road 
construction and associated activities. We also found that listing of 
the meltwater lednian stonefly may be warranted based on threats from 
climate change, and specifically the melting of glaciers associated 
with the species' habitat. The finding also requested further 
information pertaining to all three ``species'' (74 FR 41649). However, 
the 90-day finding did not formally consider the taxonomic status of 
the petitioned entities.
    This notice constitutes the 12-month finding on the July 24, 2007, 
petition to list the Bearmouth mountainsnail, Byrne Resort 
mountainsnail, and meltwater lednian stonefly as endangered or 
threatened.

Species Information for Bearmouth Mountainsnail and Byrne Resort 
Mountainsnail

Species Descriptions
    Bearmouth mountainsnail and Byrne Resort mountainsnail are ascribed 
to the genus Oreohelix, commonly called the ``mountainsnail.'' This 
genus of land snails is endemic to western North America and is found 
in mountainous environments in the western United States from the 
eastern Sierra Nevadas in the west to the Black Hills in the east, and 
from southern Canada down to northern Mexico (Pilsbry 1916, pp. 341-
342; Pilsbry 1939, pp. 415-416; Weaver 2006, p. 9).
Biology and Life History
    Most mountainsnail species are relatively large land snails (adult 
body size greater than 5 centimeters (cm) (2 inches (in.)) that 
typically prefer forested environments, calcium-rich areas, and 
generally high available water content during generally dry conditions 
in spring and summer months (Weaver 2006, p. 9). They survive colder 
conditions at higher elevations by burrowing underground and 
aestivating (Weaver 2006, p. 9). Individuals often also burrow during 
hot summer months, appearing on the surface to feed during or after 
rains (Frest and Johannes 1995, p. 22; Weaver 2006, p. 9). One 
adaptation by Oreohelix to arid and semi-arid environments is the 
practice of hatching eggs internally instead of the typical pattern of 
laying them in favorable locations, as desiccation of eggs and 
juveniles is a common cause of land snail death, especially in arid 
areas (Frest and Johannes 1995, p. 18). Hatching the eggs internally 
can reduce the probability of desiccation, and adults seem to be able 
to delay release of juveniles if conditions warrant (Frest and Johannes 
1995, p. 18).
    Western land snails are typically herbivores, but some may consume 
animal matter (Frest and Johannes 1995, p. 24). Land snails contribute 
substantially to nutrient recycling, often breaking down plant detritus 
and animal waste (Frest and Johannes 1995, pp. 24-25). They are preyed 
upon extensively by small mammals (e.g., shrews and voles), reptiles, 
amphibians, birds, and insects (Frest and Johannes 1995, p. 25).
    The life history of western land snails is strongly controlled by 
climate. Some species of Oreohelix are among the most long-lived land 
snails, reaching sexual

[[Page 18686]]

maturity at about 2 to 3 years and living as long as 8 to 10 years 
(Frest and Johannes 1995, p. 25). Mountainsnails have low adult 
vagility (ability to move or disperse) (Chak 2007, p. 23) and 
apparently lack a larval stage with high dispersal ability (Weaver 
2006, pp. 8-9). Consequently, mountainsnails typically exist in small, 
circumscribed colonies with dozens to a few thousand individuals (Frest 
and Johannes 1995, pp. 22-23). Oreohelix snails are known to be 
hermaphroditic (individuals have both male and female genitalia and can 
assume either role in mating) (Pisbry 1939, p. 427; Hendricks 2003, 
pp.17, 25) and viviparous (give birth to live young) (Pilsbry 1916, p. 
343; Pilsbry 1939, p. 418).
    Oreohelix species and subspecies vary in size, height of shell 
spire, degree of carination (i.e., presence and size of a keel or ridge 
around the outside whorl of the shell), width of umbilicus (i.e., the 
ventral opening formed in the center of the whorls), and color (Pilsbry 
1939, p. 415). Shell morphology is plastic (variable in response to 
environmental conditions) in Oreohelix, and in snails in general and 
can be affected by elevation, calcium content, humidity, and population 
density (Chak 2007, p. 3). Substantial variation in shell morphology 
within a particular Oreohelix colony is common (Pilsbry 1916, p. 340; 
1939, p. 415). Conversely, shell characteristics can be similar in taxa 
with different evolutionary histories but that occupy similar 
environments (Chak 2007, p. 3). This variation within species and 
colonies, combined with parallelism that can occur between unrelated 
groups, has long been recognized as a challenge to correctly 
identifying Oreohelix specimens and determining their distribution 
(Pilsbry 1916, p. 340).
Distribution and Abundance
    The distribution and abundance of Bearmouth mountainsnail and Byrne 
Resort mountainsnail are not well known. In general, very little is 
known about the distribution and status of terrestrial mollusks in 
Montana (e.g., Hendricks 2003, pp. 3-4). The 2007 petition from 
WildEarth Guardians and the NatureServe rankings for both Bearmouth 
mountainsnail and Byrne Resort mountainsnail (e.g., NatureServe 2010a, 
b) rely entirely on information contained in the unpublished report by 
Frest and Johannes (1995, entire) that summarized occurrence and 
conservation status of mollusks in the Interior Columbia Basin.
    Frest and Johannes (1995, p. 5) stated that the original 
distribution of Bearmouth mountainsnail is the ``Clark Fork River 
valley in the area between Clinton and Garrison, Granite and Powell 
counties, Montana,'' and they described the present distribution (in 
1995) as ``a few very small colonies in the Bearmouth area.'' They did 
not provide any spatial information about the actual location of these 
colonies. They further speculated that Bearmouth mountainsnail may 
occur in the adjacent lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service (Lolo 
National Forest) and the State of Montana. Little information about the 
Bearmouth mountainsnail has become available since the report by Frest 
and Johannes (1995, p. 115). No occurrences of Bearmouth mountainsnail 
were reported in more recent surveys of terrestrial mollusks conducted 
by the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP) (Hendricks 2003, entire; 
Hendricks et al. 2008, entire).
    The only potential recent occurrences of Bearmouth mountainsnail 
come from surveys conducted by Dr. Kathleen Weaver, an assistant 
professor at the University of La Verne, California, who recently began 
conducting research on the distribution, ecology, and genetics of 
Oreohelix in Montana. Dr. Weaver reports collecting land snail 
specimens from two colonies she believes may be Bearmouth 
mountainsnails (Weaver 2010a, 2010b, pers. comm.). The first colony is 
located in the Bearmouth area, and Dr. Weaver believes it is near the 
type locality ``Bearmouth'' location along the Clark Fork River 
described in Frest and Johannes (1995, p. 5; see above). The second 
colony is located along Rock Creek, a left-bank tributary to the Clark 
Fork River. The two colonies are believed to represent the same species 
based on genetic similarity measured using mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA, 
maternally-inherited DNA found in cellular organelles called 
mitochondria) (Weaver 2010b, pers. comm.). Dr. Weaver refers to the two 
colonies as ``Bearmouth mountainsnail'' based on the location of the 
first colony (Weaver 2010b, pers. comm.). Both colonies are very small 
(no more than 5 to 15 square meters or about 17 to 50 square feet), and 
may contain from a few dozen to a few hundred individuals (Weaver 
2010b, pers. comm.).
    No information is available on the current abundance or 
distribution of Byrne Resort mountainsnail, or whether the ``species'' 
even exists. The original distribution of the Byrne Resort 
mountainsnail was described by Frest and Johannes (1995, p. 140) as 
``the Clark Fork River valley near Bearmouth, Granite County, MT,'' and 
they described the present distribution (in 1995) as ``a few very small 
colonies in the old Byrne Resort area.'' As with the Bearmouth 
mountainsnail, Frest and Johannes did not provide any accurate spatial 
information about the actual location of these colonies. No occurrences 
of Byrne Resort mountainsnail were reported in more recent surveys of 
terrestrial mollusks conducted by the MNHP (Hendricks 2003, entire; 
Hendricks et al. 2008, entire). More recently, neither the MNHP nor Dr. 
Weaver (University of La Verne) have been able to locate a colony of 
Oreohelix in the area that Frest and Johannes (1995, p. 14) reported 
the Byrne Resort mountainsnail (Hendricks 2010, pers. comm.; Weaver 
2010b, pers. comm.). It is not known whether the colonies no longer 
exist, or if the original description of Byrne Resort mountainsnail is 
incorrect.
Habitat
    Factors determining habitat preferences of land snails include 
cover, effective moisture availability, and geologic history (Frest and 
Johannes 1995, p. 20). Most land snail species including those in the 
genus Oreohelix are calciphiles, meaning they are usually restricted to 
limestone, dolomite, or other substrates containing high levels of the 
element calcium (Pilsbry 1916, p. 342; Frest and Johannes 1995, pp. 20-
21). Moist soil conditions are favored and soil pH may be a factor in 
determining suitable habitat (Frest and Johannes 1995, pp. 20-24). 
Oreohelix are generally associated with talus (a sloping mass of loose 
rock debris at the base of a cliff) or rocky outcrops, and the occupied 
sites may range from low-elevation canyons and valley bottoms to high-
elevation slopes well above the treeline (Hendricks 2003, pp. 4-5).

Taxonomy and Evaluation of the Listable Entities for Bearmouth 
Mountainsnail and Byrne Resort Mountainsnail

    The genus Oreohelix belongs to phylum Mollusca, class Gastropoda, 
order Stylommatophora (terrestrial snails and slugs), and family 
Oreohelicidae. The genus Oreohelix consists of 41 recognized species 
(Turgeon et al. 1998, p. 143; Integrated Taxonomic Information System 
(ITIS) 2010). Overall, the taxonomy of the genus is not well known 
(Chak 2007, p. 21; Weaver 2006, p. 9), and additional species have been 
proposed in the primary literature (e.g., Ports 2004, entire), in 
graduate theses (e.g., Weaver 2006, pp. 49-95), and in grey literature 
reports (e.g., Frest and Johannes 1995, pp. 113-140). The most extreme 
example of purported additional

[[Page 18687]]

taxonomic diversity in Oreohelix is found in Frest and Johannes (1995, 
pp. 113-139), who proposed that 31 additional species or subspecies 
were found in the Interior Columbia Basin. The Bearmouth mountainsnail 
(Oreohelix sp. 3) and the Byrne Resort Mountainsnail (Oreohelix sp. 31) 
were among these 31 proposed species or subspecies (Frest and Johannes 
1995, pp. 115, 139-140).
    Taxonomic classification of Oreohelix snails has been based 
traditionally on shell morphology (e.g., Pilsbry 1916, entire; Pilsbry 
1939, pp. 413-553). Nonetheless, shell morphology has long been 
considered an unreliable characteristic for delineating taxonomic units 
within Oreohelix because of the substantial phenotypic plasticity that 
exists for shell traits (Pilsbry 1916, p. 340; Chak 2007, pp. 3, 15; 
Weaver et al. 2008, p. 908). Phenotypic plasticity is defined as the 
ability of an individual genotype (genetic composition) to produce 
multiple phenotypes (observable characteristics or traits) in response 
to its environment. There is wide agreement among malacologists (the 
branch of invertebrate zoology that deals with the study of Mollusca) 
familiar with Oreohelix that relying exclusively on shell morphology to 
designate taxa is problematic (McDonald 2010, pers. comm.; Oliver 2010, 
pers. comm.; Weaver 2010a, pers. comm.). More robust taxonomic 
designations within genus Oreohelix generally rely on differences in 
internal anatomy, such as penis morphology (Pilsbry 1916, entire; 
Pilsbry 1939, pp. 413-553; Chak 2007, p. 15). More recently, molecular 
genetic methods have been used to reconcile taxonomic designations 
originally based on morphological characteristics (e.g., Chak 2007, pp. 
21-42; Weaver et al. 2008, entire).
    The basis of the species designations for the Bearmouth 
mountainsnail (Oreohelix sp. 3) and Byrne Resort mountainsnail 
(Oreohelix sp. 31) is shell morphology (Frest and Johannes 1995, pp. 
115, 139-140). Unfortunately, Frest and Johannes never published any of 
their putative (presumed or supposed) species designations for 
Oreohelix contained in their 1995 report. In some cases, species 
designations by Frest and Johannes that relied entirely on shell 
morphology were subsequently found to be in error when additional 
morphological (Weaver 2006, p. 10) or genetic information (Chak 2007, 
p. 1) was collected.
Taxonomy of the Bearmouth Mountainsnail (Oreohelix sp. 3)
    The only additional information about the occurrence and taxonomic 
status of Bearmouth mountainsnail comes from Dr. Weaver (Weaver 2010a, 
2010b, pers. comm.). As described above, she identified two colonies of 
Oreohelix in Montana that she believes represent Bearmouth 
mountainsnail, based on the location of one colony and genetic 
similarity (of mtDNA) of the two colonies (Weaver 2010b, pers. comm.). 
Dr. Weaver observed that genetic analyses of individuals from these two 
colonies (that she believes to represent Bearmouth mountainsnail) 
revealed approximately 6 percent DNA sequence divergence relative to a 
sister taxon (O. carinifera) in the same genus (Weaver 2010a, pers. 
comm.). This level of divergence is consistent with species-level 
differences in terrestrial mollusks (e.g., Weaver et al. 2008, pp. 913-
914). Thus, there is some evidence to suggest that the individuals she 
sequenced are part of a distinct species or subspecies. Unfortunately, 
archived individuals collected from the putative type location of 
Bearmouth mountainsnail (as described in Frest and Johannes 1995, p. 
115) are not available (Weaver 2010b, pers. comm.). Moreover, Frest and 
Johannes did not provide the precise location of any of the ``type 
localities'' (i.e., location where the specimens that define the 
species were collected) for the undescribed species in their 1995 
report (Frest and Johannes 1995, pp. 113-140). Consequently, there 
remains uncertainty as to whether the ``Bearmouth mountainsnail'' 
proposed by Frest and Johannes (1995, p. 115) represents the same 
entity that Dr. Weaver refers to as ``Bearmouth mountainsnail.''
    Uncertainty notwithstanding, the Bearmouth mountainsnail is not 
included as a valid taxon in the classic works by Pilsbry (1916, 
entire; 1939, entire), which are still accepted as the most 
authoritative publications on the taxonomy of Oreohelix; nor is the 
Bearmouth mountainsnail listed among the Oreohelix taxa recognized by 
more current sources such as the Integrated Taxonomic Information 
System (ITIS 2010) or the Council of Systematic Malacologists and the 
American Malacological Union (Turgeon et al. 1998, p. 143 in this 
compilation of mollusk taxonomy by scientific experts). In summary, the 
entity referred to as the ``Bearmouth mountainsnail'' has not been 
formally described as a species according to accepted scientific 
standards, and this entity is not widely recognized as a species or 
subspecies by the scientific community. The type of additional 
information that may permit a formal description may include a more 
thorough description of the type specimen, an evaluation of various 
lines of evidence (morphological, ecological, biogeographical, genetic) 
relevant to its taxonomic status, resolution of any discrepancies in 
taxonomic nomenclature, or a combination of these (e.g., Weaver 2006, 
pp. 49-65), and that the taxon be accepted as valid by widely-
recognized sources (e.g., Turgeon et al. 1998, entire; ITIS 2010).
Taxonomic Status of Byrne Resort Mountainsnail (Oreohelix sp. 31)
    There have been no additional collections of Byrne Resort 
mountainsnail at the location initially described by Frest and Johannes 
(1995, p. 140) (Hendricks 2010, pers. comm.; Weaver 2010b, pers. 
comm.). Specimens collected near where Frest and Johannes made their 
collection of Byrne Resort mountainsnail have been tentatively 
identified as a variant of an existing species (lyrate mountainsnail, 
Oreohelix haydeni) based on morphological characteristics (Hendricks 
2010, pers. comm.). To our knowledge, there has been no follow-up 
analysis of any specimens collected by Frest and Johannes (1995, pp. 
139-140). Thus, we have virtually no information on this putative 
species.
    The taxonomic validity of the Byrne Resort mountainsnail is highly 
uncertain given that the only description was based on shell 
morphology, which, as discussed above, is widely recognized by the 
scientific community as a poor trait for defining taxonomic groups in 
Oreohelix (Pilsbry 1906, p. 340). Moreover, we are not aware of any 
corroborating information concerning the taxonomic status of this 
entity. The Byrne Resort mountainsnail is not listed as a valid taxon 
in the classic works by Pilsbry (1916, entire; 1939, entire), which are 
still accepted as the most authoritative publications on the taxonomy 
of Oreohelix; nor is the Byrne Resort mountainsnail listed among the 
Oreohelix taxa recognized by more current sources such as the Council 
of Systematic Malacologists (e.g., Turgeon et al. 1998, p. 143) or the 
Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS 2010). In short, the 
entity referred to as ``Byrne Resort mountainsnail'' has not been 
formally described as a species according to accepted scientific 
standards, and this entity is not widely recognized as a species or 
subspecies by the scientific community. The type of additional 
information that may permit a formal description may include a more

[[Page 18688]]

thorough description of the type specimen, an evaluation of various 
lines of evidence (morphological, ecological, biogeographical, genetic) 
relevant to its taxonomic status, resolution of any discrepancies in 
taxonomic nomenclature, or a combination of these (e.g., Weaver 2006, 
pp. 49-65), and that the taxon be accepted as valid by widely-
recognized sources (e.g., Turgeon et al. 1998, entire; ITIS 2010).

Finding for the Bearmouth Mountainsnail (Oreohelix sp. 3) and Byrne 
Resort Mountainsnail (Oreohelix sp. 31)

    We have very little information on the distribution and abundance 
of these two land snails. In fact, we could not find any information on 
occurrence or even the existence of the species referred to as the 
``Byrne Resort mountainsnail'' by Frest and Johannes (1995, p. 139). We 
have some information, based on recent surveys and genetic analyses, 
that two colonies of land snails tentatively identified by a species 
expert as ``Bearmouth mountainsnail'' currently exist in the vicinity 
of the Clark Fork River valley, Montana (Weaver 2010a, 2010b, pers. 
comm.). To our knowledge, there has never been a systematic analysis of 
the validity of taxonomic arrangements (i.e., subspecies or species) 
that have been proposed for Oreohelix by Frest and Johannes (1995, pp. 
113-140). Moreover, neither the Bearmouth mountainsnail nor the Byrne 
Resort mountainsnail has been formally described as a species, and 
neither is presently recognized as a species or subspecies by the 
scientific community (e.g., Pilsbry 1939, entire; Turgeon et al. 1998, 
p. 143; ITIS 2010).
    Neither the Bearmouth mountainsnail nor the Byrne Resort 
mountainsnail is recognized as a species or subspecies, and their 
taxonomic statuses are currently uncertain. Consequently, the Service 
does not at this time consider the Bearmouth mountainsnail or the Byrne 
Resort mountainsnail to be listable entities under section 3(16) of the 
Act (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)) because they do not belong to taxa currently 
recognized by the scientific community. The Service encourages 
additional scientific investigations that will resolve the significant 
uncertainties concerning the occurrence and taxonomy of Oreohelix land 
snails. Because we have concluded the Bearmouth mountainsnail and the 
Byrne Resort mountainsnail are not listable entities, we will not be 
further evaluating these mountainsnails under section 4(a)(1) of the 
Act, and they will not be discussed further in this finding.

Species Information for the Meltwater Lednian Stonefly

Species Description and Taxonomy
    The meltwater lednian stonefly (Lednia tumana) is in the monotypic 
genus Lednia (Baumann 1975, p. 19; Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 263; 
Stark et al. 2009, entire). The genus Lednia belongs to the phylum 
Arthropoda, class Insecta, order Plecoptera (stoneflies), family 
Nemouridae, and subfamily Nemourinae. The family Nemouridae is the 
largest in the order Plecoptera (stoneflies), comprising more than 370 
species in 17 genera (Baumann 1975, p. 1). In North America, family 
Nemouridae comprises 73 species in 13 genera (Stark et al. 2009, 
entire). The type specimens for the meltwater lednian stonefly were 
collected in the Many Glaciers area of Glacier National Park (Glacier 
NP), Montana (Baumann 1982, pers. comm.). The species was originally 
described by Ricker in 1952 (Baumann 1975, p. 18), and is recognized as 
a valid species by the scientific community (e.g., Baumann 1975, p. 18; 
Baumann et al. 1977, pp. 7, 34; Newell et al. 2008, p. 181; Stark et 
al. 2009, entire). Consequently, we conclude that the meltwater lednian 
stonefly (Lednia tumana) is a valid species and, therefore, a listable 
entity under section 3(16) of the Act.
    Kondratieff and Lechleitner (2002, pp. 385, 391) reported that 
specimens thought to be the meltwater lednian stonefly were collected 
in Mount Rainier National Park (Mount Rainier NP), Washington. They 
also cited a personal communication with a species expert (R.W. 
Baumann, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT) that similar specimens 
also are known from North Cascades National Park (North Cascades NP), 
Washington, and a site in the California Sierra Nevada (Kondratieff and 
Lechleitner 2002, pp. 388-389). However, the specimens discovered in 
Mount Rainier NP, North Cascades NP, and in the Sierra Nevada Mountains 
of California are now believed to represent additional undescribed taxa 
(presumably in the genus Lednia) that await formal description (Baumann 
2010, pers. comm.; Kondratieff 2010, pers. comm.; Kondratieff et al. 
2006, p. 463). If these specimens are described as species in the genus 
Lednia, then the genus Lednia would no longer be considered a monotypic 
genus. However, the taxonomy of these additional specimens (from Mount 
Rainier NP, North Cascades NP, and in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of 
California) has not been evaluated or accepted by the scientific 
community (e.g., Stark et al. 2009, entire). Thus, while there is some 
preliminary indication that the taxonomy of the genus Lednia will be 
revised when the new specimens are officially described, the meltwater 
lednian stonefly remains the only species in the genus Lednia that is 
currently recognized by the scientific community. Consequently, based 
on the information presented above, the Service considers Lednia to be 
a monotypic genus. Therefore, for the purpose of this finding, we are 
evaluating the meltwater lednian stonefly, throughout its known range, 
as a full species in a monotypic genus.
    The nymph (aquatic juvenile stage) of the meltwater lednian 
stonefly is dark red-brown on its dorsal (top) surface and pink on the 
ventral (lower) surface, with light grey-green legs (Baumann and 
Stewart 1980, p. 658). Mature nymphs can range in size from 4.5 to 6.5 
millimeter (mm) (0.18 to 0.26 in.) (Baumann and Stewart 1980, p. 655). 
Adults also are small, ranging in size from 4 to 6 mm (0.16 to 0.24 
in.) (Baumann 1975, p. 19).
Biology and Life History
    Plecoptera (stoneflies) are primarily associated with clean, cool, 
running waters (Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 217). The Nemourids are 
usually the dominant Plecoptera family in mountain-river ecosystems, 
both in terms of total biomass and in numbers of species present 
(Baumann 1975, p. 1). Eggs and larvae of all North American species of 
stoneflies, including the meltwater lednian stonefly, are aquatic 
(Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 217). Nemourid stonefly larvae are 
typically herbivores or detritivores, and their feeding mode is 
generally that of a shredder or collector-gatherer (Baumann 1975, p. 1; 
Stewart and Harper 1996, pp. 218, 262). We have no information on the 
longevity of the meltwater lednian stonefly, but in general stoneflies 
can complete their life cycles within a single year (univoltine) or in 
2 to 3 years (semivoltine) (Stewart and Harper 1996, pp. 217-218). 
Adult meltwater lednian stoneflies are thought to emerge and breed in 
August and September (Baumann and Stewart 1980, p. 658; Giersch 2010b, 
pers. comm.; MNHP 2010a).
Distribution and Abundance
    The current known distribution of the meltwater lednian stonefly is 
restricted to a handful of locations just to the east and west of the 
Continental Divide within Glacier NP (Newell et al. 2008, p. 181; 
National Park Service (NPS) 2009; see Table 1 below). Within the last 
13 years, the meltwater lednian stonefly has been observed in a total 
of 11

[[Page 18689]]

streams within Glacier NP, at sites ranging from 1,628 to 2,378 meters 
(m) elevation (5,341 to 7,801 feet (ft)) (NPS 2009; see Table 1 below). 
Most collection sites have been in close proximity to glaciers. The 
species can attain moderate to high abundance in certain locations 
(e.g., Logan Creek: Baumann and Stewart 1980, p. 658; NPS 2009, 
entire).

   Table 1--Documented Occurrences of Meltwater Lednian Stonefly (Lednia tumana) During the Last 13 Years. All
  Occurrences Are Within Glacier NP, Montana. Information Provided by NPS (2009) Based on Data Collected by F.
Richard Hauer (Flathead Lake Biological Station, Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Polson)
                          and Joe Giersch (DrunellaDesigns.com, West Glacier, Montana)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Stream or drainage                     Year                            Elevation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            East of the Continental Divide (Glacier County, Montana)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baring Creek \a\...........................               1998  2,378 m (7,801 ft).
                                                          1999  2,173 m (7,129 ft).
                                                          2003  2,273 m (7,457 ft).
                                                          2009  2,024 m (6,640 ft).
Lunch Creek a b............................               1999  2,173 m (7,129 ft).
                                                          2003  2,273 m (7,457 ft).
                                                          2009  2,024 m (6,640 ft).
Reynolds Creek a b.........................               1997  2,171 m (7,123 ft).
                                                                2,170 m (7,119 ft).
                                                                2,140 m (7,021 ft).
                                                                2,106 m (6,909 ft).
                                                                2,165 m (7,103 ft).
                                                          1998  2,169 m (7,116 ft).
                                                                2,068 m (6,785 ft).
                                                                2,099 m (6,886 ft).
                                                                2,165 m (7,103 ft).
St. Mary River \a\.........................               1999  2,054 m (6,739 ft).
Swiftcurrent Creek \a\.....................               2007  1,628 m (5,341 ft).
Twin Lakes (St. Mary River)................               1998  2,265 m (7,431 ft).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            West of the Continental Divide (Flathead County, Montana)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahern Creek................................               1998  2,065 m (6,775 ft).
Bear Creek.................................               2001  1,696 m (5,564 ft).
Hidden Lake (Hidden Creek).................               1998  2,302 m (7,552 ft).
Logan Creek a b............................               1998  2,115 m (6,939 ft).
                                                                2,031 m (6,663 ft).
Mineral Creek..............................               1997  2,017 m (6,617 ft)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collection Location Details
\a\ Stream directly associated with a named glacier within that watershed or an unnamed glacier present on a
  7.5' topographic map.
\b\ Multiple collections within a stream are itemized by year and elevation.

    Although the species has been observed recently only in Glacier NP, 
experts speculate that suitable habitat for the species may extend 
north into Waterton Lakes National Park in Canada and south into the 
Scapegoat-Great Bear-Bob Marshall wilderness areas of Montana, or in 
similar areas of the northern Rocky Mountains in alpine snow-melt 
streams (e.g., Baumann 1982, pers. comm.; Giersch 2010a, pers. comm.). 
The species was previously reported from the Waterton River system in 
Alberta (Donald and Anderson 1977, p. 114). However, surveys conducted 
in Waterton Lakes National Park (Canada) during 2007 and 2008 did not 
detect the species (Langor 2010, pers. comm.), although it is unclear 
if the proper habitat was surveyed (Johnston 2010, pers. comm.).
    In general, little information exists about the meltwater lednian 
stonefly, and additional surveys are needed in order to develop a more 
thorough understanding of its distribution and abundance (e.g., Giersch 
2010a, 2010b, pers. comm.). In the interim, we conclude based on the 
available recent survey information that the meltwater lednian stonefly 
is a narrow endemic present only in Glacier NP.
Habitat
    The meltwater lednian stonefly is found in snow-melt runoff streams 
in high-elevation, alpine areas, most typically in locations closely 
linked to glacial runoff (Baumann and Stewart 1980, p. 658; MNHP 2010a) 
or alpine springs (Hauer et al. 2007, p. 107; Giersch 2010c, pers. 
comm.). The species is considered a cold-water stenotherm restricted to 
water less than (<) 10 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (< 50 degrees 
Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) (MNHP 2010a), but apparently it can tolerate 
higher water temperatures (up to 15 [deg]C (59 [deg]F)) in certain 
situations (Hauer et al. 2007, p. 107) for short periods of time 
(Giersch 2010c, pers. comm.). Most aquatic invertebrates in stream 
environments in the northern Rocky Mountains exhibit very strong 
elevation (temperature) gradients in their distribution (e.g., Fagre et 
al. 1997, p. 763; Lowe and Hauer 1999, pp. 1637, 1640, 1642; Hauer et 
al. 2007, p. 110), and occur at the highest population density in their 
preferred temperature range. We presume the meltwater lednian stonefly 
exhibits a similar pattern, in terms of being more likely to be present 
and more abundant in the small (first order), cold, snowmelt-driven, 
alpine streams, and less likely to occur farther downstream within a 
drainage in larger habitats (second order and larger streams) with 
warmer water temperatures. In general, the alpine

[[Page 18690]]

streams inhabited by the meltwater lednian stonefly are presumed to 
have very low nutrient concentrations (low nitrogen and phosphorus), 
reflecting the nutrient content of the glacial or snow-melt source 
(Hauer et al. 2007, pp. 107-108). The daytime microhabitat preferences 
of meltwater lednian stonefly nymphs are the underside of rocks or 
larger pieces of bark or wood (Baumann and Stewart 1980, p. 658).

Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors for the Meltwater 
Lednian Stonefly

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding species to the 
Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be 
endangered or threatened based on any of the following five factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    In making this finding, information pertaining to meltwater lednian 
stonefly in relation to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of 
the Act is discussed below.
    In considering what factors might constitute threats to a species, 
we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a factor to evaluate 
whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that causes 
actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor and the 
species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we attempt 
to determine how significant a threat it is. The threat is significant 
if it drives, or contributes to, the risk of extinction of the species 
such that the species warrants listing as endangered or threatened as 
those terms are defined in the Act.

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

    The known distribution of the meltwater lednian stonefly is 
entirely within the boundaries of Glacier NP. The ecosystems in most 
national parks are considered to be comparatively pristine, and the 
Glacier NP is a relatively unaltered landscape when compared to other 
areas of western North America (Fagre 2005, p. 2).
Climate Change
    Climate is influenced primarily by long-term patterns in air 
temperature and precipitation. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change (IPCC) has concluded that climate warming is unequivocal, and is 
now evident from observed increases in global average air and ocean 
temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global 
mean sea level (IPCC 2007, pp. 30-31). Continued greenhouse gas 
emissions at or above current rates are expected to cause further 
warming (IPCC 2007, p. 30). The years from 1995 through 2006 rank among 
the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global average near-
surface temperature since 1850 (Independent Scientific Advisory Board 
(ISAB) 2007, p. 7; IPCC 2007, p. 30). During the last century, mean 
annual air temperature increased by approximately 0.6 [deg]C (1.1 
[deg]F) (IPCC 2007, p. 30). Warming appears to have accelerated in 
recent decades, as the linear warming trend over the 50 years from 1956 
to 2005 (average 0.13 [deg]C or 0.24 [deg]F per decade) is nearly twice 
that for the 100 years from 1906 to 2005 (IPCC 2007, p. 30). Climate 
change scenarios estimate that the mean air temperature could increase 
by over 3 [deg]C (5.4 [deg]F) by 2100 (IPCC 2007, pp. 45-46). The IPCC 
also projects there will likely be regional increases in the frequency 
of hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation, as well as 
greater warming in high northern latitudes (IPCC 2007, p. 46).
    We recognize that there are scientific differences of opinion on 
many aspects of climate change, including the role of natural 
variability in climate. In our analysis, we rely primarily on synthesis 
documents (IPCC 2007, entire; ISAB 2007, entire; Karl et al. 2009, 
entire) that present the consensus view of a large number of experts on 
climate change from around the world. We find that these synthesis 
reports, as well as the scientific papers used in, or resulting from, 
those reports represent the best available scientific information we 
can use to inform our decision. Where possible, we use empirical data 
or projections specific to Glacier NP and the surrounding area and 
focus on observed or expected effects on stream systems, as this area 
includes the known distribution of the meltwater lednian stonefly.
    Water temperature and hydrology (stream flow) influence many of the 
basic physical and biological processes in aquatic systems, and both 
are sensitive to environmental changes that result from climate change 
(e.g., Stewart et al. 2005, entire; Isaak et al. 2010, entire; Kaushal 
et al. 2010, entire). For ectothermic organisms like aquatic 
invertebrates, temperature sets basic constraints on species' 
distribution and physiological performance (Fagre et al. 1997, p. 763; 
Lowe and Hauer 1999, pp. 1637, 1640, 1642; Hauer et al. 2007, p. 110). 
Stream hydrology not only affects the structure of aquatic systems 
across space and time, but influences the life history and phenology 
(timing of life-cycle events) of aquatic invertebrates such as 
stoneflies (Stewart and Harper 1996, pp. 217-218).
    Significant trends in water temperature and stream flow have been 
observed in the western United States (Stewart et al. 2005, entire; 
Kaushal et al. 2010, entire), and increased air temperatures and 
changes in precipitation are partially responsible. During the past 50 
to 100 years in the western United States, the timing of runoff from 
snowmelt has shifted to occur 1 to 4 weeks earlier (Regonda et al. 
2005, p. 380; Stewart et al. 2005, pp. 1136, 1141; Hamlet et al. 2007, 
p. 1468), presumably as a result of increased temperatures (Hamlet et 
al. 2007, p. 1468), increased frequency of melting (Mote et al. 2005, 
p. 45), and decreased snowpack (Mote et al. 2005, p. 41). Trends in 
decreased water availability also are apparent across the Pacific 
Northwest. For example, Luce and Holden (2009, entire) found a tendency 
toward more extreme droughts at 72 percent of the stream flow gages 
they examined across Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington.
    The western United States appears to be warming faster than the 
global average. In the Pacific Northwest, regionally averaged 
temperatures have risen 0.8 [deg]C (1.5 [deg]F) over the last century 
and as much as 2 [deg]C (4 [deg]F) in some areas. Since 1900, the mean 
annual air temperature for Glacier NP and the surrounding region has 
increased 1.33 [deg]C, which is 1.8 times the global mean increase 
(U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2010, p. 1). Mean annual air 
temperatures are projected to increase by another 1.5 to 5.5 [deg]C (3 
to 10 [deg]F) over the next 100 years (Karl et al. 2009, p. 135). 
Warming also appears to be very pronounced in alpine regions globally 
(e.g., Hall and Fagre 2003, p. 134 and references therein).
    For the purposes of this finding, we consider the foreseeable 
future for anticipated environmental changes such as reductions in 
glacial meltwater and increases in stream temperatures to be 
approximately 40 years based on two factors. First, various global 
climate models (GCMs) and emissions scenarios give consistent 
predictions within that

[[Page 18691]]

timeframe (Ray et al. 2010, p. 11). Second, the effect of climate 
change on glaciers in Glacier NP has been modeled within that time 
range (e.g., Hall and Fagre 2003, entire). We used a similar 
foreseeable future time period when considering climate change 
projections in other 12-month findings for species in western North 
America (see American pika (Ochotona princeps), 75 FR 6438, February 9, 
2010; Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus), 75 FR 54708, September 8, 
2010).
    While projected patterns of warming across North America are 
generally consistent across different GCMs and emissions scenarios (Ray 
et al. 2010, p. 22), there tends to be less agreement among models for 
whether mean annual precipitation will increase or decrease, but the 
models seem to indicate an increase in precipitation in winter and a 
decrease in summer (Ray et al. 2010, pp. 22-23). In the foreseeable 
future, natural variation will likely confound a clear prediction for 
precipitation based on current climate models (Ray et al. 2010, p. 29). 
Although there is considerable uncertainty about how climate will 
evolve at any specific location, statistically downscaled climate 
projection models (models that predict climate at finer spatial 
resolution than GCMs) for the western United States also support 
widespread warming, with warmer temperature zones shifting to the north 
and upward in elevation (Ray et al. 2010, pp. 23-24).
    Based on the information described above, we believe that 
environmental changes resulting from climate change may affect the 
meltwater lednian stonefly through two primary mechanisms: (1) Loss of 
glaciers, and (2) changes in hydrology and increased water temperature.
Glacier Loss
    Environmental changes resulting from climate change are assumed to 
be directly related to the well-documented loss of glaciers in Glacier 
NP (e.g., Hall and Fagre 2003, entire; Fagre 2005, entire). Glacier NP 
contained approximately 150 glaciers larger than 0.1 square kilometer 
(25 acres) in size when established in 1910, but presently only 25 
glaciers larger than 0.1 square kilometers in size (25 acres) remain in 
the park (Fagre 2005, pp. 1-3; USGS 2005, 2010). Between 1966 and 2006, 
the 25 largest glaciers (those that are presently believed to be larger 
than 0.1 square kilometer (25 acres) in area) shrank by an average of 
26.4 percent, whereas smaller glaciers (those that are presently 
believed to be smaller than 0.1 square kilometer (25 acres) in area) 
shrank at more than twice that rate (59.7 percent) (USGS 2010).
    Hall and Fagre (2003, entire) modeled the effects of climate change 
on glaciers in Glacier NP's Blackfoot-Jackson basin using then-current 
climate assumptions (doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide by 2030). 
Current climate change publications consider scenarios with higher 
anticipated carbon dioxide concentrations and associated temperature 
changes. However, we are not aware of any other published studies using 
more recent climate scenarios that speak directly to anticipated 
conditions in Glacier NP, so we use Hall and Fagre's predictions in our 
analysis. Under this scenario, they predicted that increases in winter 
precipitation would not be able to buffer glacial shrinking, and the 
Blackfoot-Jackson glaciers, which are among the largest in Glacier NP, 
would disappear entirely by 2030 (Hall and Fagre 2003, pp. 137-138).
    Glacial shrinking varies by topography (structure and position of 
land underlying the glaciers), with the result that glaciers shrink at 
different rates (e.g., Key et al. 2002, p. J370; Hall and Fagre 2003, 
p. 136). Given the greater relative rate of shrinkage observed in 
smaller glaciers (e.g., USGS 2010), we presume that if Hall and Fagre's 
projections are correct, then nearly all glaciers should be gone from 
Glacier NP by 2030. We base our analysis as to whether climate change 
threatens the meltwater lednian stonefly on this assumption.
    The consequences of glacier shrinking and glacier loss to aquatic 
systems inhabited by the meltwater lednian stonefly in Glacier NP are 
expected to be significant (e.g., Fagre 2005, p. 8). Glaciers act as 
water banks, whose continual melt helps regulate stream water 
temperatures and maintain streamflows during late summer or drought 
periods (Hauer et al. 2007, p. 107; USGS 2010). Loss of glaciers may 
lead to direct dewatering of headwater stream reaches, thus desiccating 
(drying) habitats currently occupied by lednian stoneflies that are 
often in close proximity to glaciers (e.g., Baumann and Stewart 1980, 
p. 658). Permanent desiccation (i.e., no streamflow) resulting from 
loss of glaciers is expected to result directly in the loss of suitable 
habitat for the meltwater lednian stonefly and the extirpation of 
populations that are directly dependent on surface runoff from melting 
glaciers.
    In some cases, streams might change from perennial (always flowing) 
to ephemeral (only flowing seasonally) as glaciers disappear (Hauer et 
al. 1997, p. 909). A transition from perennial to ephemeral streamflow 
also is expected to reduce the extent of habitat suitable for the 
meltwater lednian stonefly; however, the actual response may be more 
complex in this scenario. For example, adults of the species emerge 
(transition from aquatic larvae to terrestrial winged adults) and 
reproduce in the short time period in August and September when the 
streams are not covered with seasonal snowpack. The species is thus 
adapted to reproduce in a very narrow ecological window. If the stream 
only flows seasonally, the species may still be able to complete its 
life cycle if the nymph (larval) stage can withstand seasonal stream 
drying. We do not know whether the species can complete its entire life 
cycle within 1 year (univoltine) or across more than 1 year 
(semivoltine), nor do we have projections for which streams may dry 
seasonally in Glacier NP. Therefore, at this time we cannot accurately 
predict the response of the species in cases where streams change from 
perennial to ephemeral. However, we do presume that this change will, 
at a minimum, reduce the distribution and abundance of the species.
    Loss of glaciers also may indirectly affect alpine streams by 
changing the riparian vegetation and nutrient cycling in stream 
ecosystems. For example, the reduced snowpacks that lead to glacier 
recession are predicted to allow high-elevation trees to become 
established above the current treeline and in subalpine meadows, and 
thus to reduce the diversity of herbaceous plants (Hall and Fagre 2003, 
pp. 138-139). Changes in riparian vegetation (such as a shift from 
deciduous to coniferous vegetation) may affect nutrient cycling in 
headwater streams and the quality of food resources available to 
herbivorous aquatic insects (e.g., Hisabae et al. 2010, pp. 5-7), such 
as the meltwater lednian stonefly and other aquatic macroinvertebrates.
Changes to Streamflow and Water Temperature
    Reduced water volume of snowmelt runoff from glaciers (Fagre 2005, 
p. 7), combined with earlier runoff (e.g., Fagre 2005, p. 1) and 
increases in temperatures expected under climate change (Karl et al. 
2009, p. 135), may result in water temperatures above the physiological 
limits for survival or optimal growth for the meltwater lednian 
stonefly, which is a cold-water species (MNHP 2010a). Given the strong 
temperature gradients that influence the distribution of aquatic 
invertebrates (Fagre et al. 1997, p. 763; Lowe and Hauer 1999, pp. 
1637, 1640, 1642; Hauer et al. 2007, p. 110) and our

[[Page 18692]]

assumption that the meltwater lednian stonefly responds similarly to 
these types of gradients, we expect that there will be major changes in 
invertebrate communities, with species that currently occupy more 
downstream reaches shifting their distributions to higher elevations to 
track changing thermal regimes (e.g., Fagre 2005, p. 7). One likely 
result is the displacement or extirpation or both of stenothermic 
species that occupy headwater stream reaches (such as the meltwater 
lednian stonefly), due to thermal conditions that become unsuitable, 
encroaching aquatic invertebrate species that may be superior 
competitors, or changed thermal conditions that may favor the 
encroaching species in competitive interactions between the species 
(so-called condition-specific competition). Consequently, we infer that 
changes in the timing and volume of streamflow coupled with increased 
summer water temperatures will reduce the extent of suitable habitat 
and result in the extirpation of some meltwater lednian stonefly 
populations.
    In summary, we expect environmental changes resulting from climate 
change to affect the meltwater lednian stonefly through loss of 
glaciers, which can lead to the permanent or seasonal drying of 
currently occupied habitats, and through interrelated alterations to 
existing hydrologic and thermal regimes, which will reduce the extent 
of habitat suitable for this species because it has very specific 
thermal requirements (i.e., it is a cold-water obligate). Environmental 
changes resulting from climate change are ongoing based on the 
documented shrinking of glaciers in Glacier NP, and are expected to 
continue in the foreseeable future in Glacier NP (e.g., Fagre and Hall 
2003, entire) and across western North America (USGS 2010, p.1; Karl et 
al. 2009, p. 135). Consequently, we conclude that the threat of current 
and future environmental changes resulting from climate change occurs 
over the entire range of the species. This threat has likely reduced 
the amount of suitable habitat for the meltwater lednian stonefly, 
based on the documented extent of glacial melting. However, data on the 
species is sparse and limited to a handful of observations (e.g., see 
Table 1 above). Thus, we have no empirical basis for evaluating whether 
there are any trends in the occurrence or abundance of the species, nor 
can we speak to whether environmental changes resulting from climate 
change have actually affected populations. We reason that future 
environmental changes resulting from climate change will likely result 
in the extirpation of populations of the meltwater lednian stonefly 
because of stream drying and increased water temperatures, and that 
there will be substantial reductions in the amount of suitable habitat 
for the species relative to its current range. Effects on populations 
found in spring habitats may lag behind those found in stream habitats 
directly associated with melting glaciers or snowfields. Chemical, 
hydrologic, and thermal conditions of both habitat types are ultimately 
influenced by melting snow and ice, but conditions in spring habitats 
are more stable (e.g., Hauer et al. 2007, p. 107; Giersch 2010c, pers. 
comm.) and should change more slowly because their groundwater sources 
are storing water from melted snow and ice. Ultimately, spring habitats 
might also dry as their groundwater sources are depleted, and not 
replenished by glacial meltwater.
    The impacts of environmental changes resulting from climate change 
will likely continue within the foreseeable future (40 years). Due to 
the magnitude and extent of the effects of the environmental changes 
resulting from climate change, we conclude that the environmental 
changes resulting from climate change constitute a significant threat 
to the meltwater lednian stonefly in the foreseeable future.
Maintenance and Improvement of Glacier National Park Infrastructure
    Glacier NP is managed to protect natural and cultural resources, 
and the landscape within the park is relatively pristine. However, the 
Glacier NP does include a number of human-built facilities and 
structures, such as the Going-to-the-Sun Road (which bisects the 
Glacier NP) and numerous visitor centers, trailheads, overlooks, and 
lodges (e.g., NPS 2003a, pp. S3, 11). Maintenance and improvement of 
these facilities and structures could conceivably lead to disturbance 
of the natural environment.
    One major project initiated in 2003, and that is ongoing as of 
2011, is the improvement of the Going-to-the-Sun Road (NPS 2003a; 
2003b). This road parallels or bisects a number of streams in the 
Glacier NP including McDonald, Logan, Lunch, Siyeh, and Baring Creeks 
(NPS 2003a, p. 134). Localized land disturbance associated with 
construction activities could lead to introduction of sediment into 
stream channels (e.g., NPS 2003a, pp. S18-S19, 74). However, the 
collection sites for the meltwater lednian stonefly in streams adjacent 
to or bisected by the road (e.g., Logan, Lunch, and Baring Creeks; see 
Table 1 above) are all upstream from the road. We anticipate that any 
disturbance to aquatic habitats from road construction would occur in 
the immediate vicinity of the construction and that any impacts (i.e., 
sediment input) would be translated downstream. Thus, we conclude that 
road maintenance does not constitute a threat to the meltwater lednian 
stonefly or its habitat now or in the foreseeable future.
    We do not have any information indicating maintenance and 
improvement of other Glacier NP facilities and structures is affecting 
the species. Most documented occurrences of meltwater lednian stonefly 
are in remote locations upstream from human-built structures; thus we 
conclude that maintenance and improvement of other Glacier NP 
facilities and structures does not constitute a threat to the meltwater 
lednian stonefly or its habitat now or in the foreseeable future.
Glacier National Park Visitor Impacts
    Between 2000 to 2008, Glacier NP averaged more than 1.8 million 
visitors annually (NPS 2008). Many of the recent collection sites for 
the meltwater lednian stonefly (e.g., Logan and Reynolds Creeks; see 
Table 1 above) are near visitor centers or adjacent to popular hiking 
trails. Theoretically, human activity (wading) in streams by anglers or 
hikers could disturb meltwater lednian stonefly habitat. However, we 
consider it unlikely that many Glacier NP visitors would actually wade 
in stream habitats where the species has been collected, because the 
sites are in small, high-elevation streams situated in rugged terrain, 
and most would not be suitable for angling. In addition, the sites are 
typically snow covered into late July or August (Giersch 2010a, pers. 
comm.), and the alpine areas begin to accumulate snowpack in the fall, 
so the sites occupied by the stonefly are not accessible for more than 
a few months. We also note that the most accessible collection sites in 
Logan Creek near the Logan Pass Visitor Center and the Going-to-the-Sun 
Road (so called ``Jones Flat'' at Oberlin Bend) are currently closed to 
public use and entry to protect resident vegetation (NPS 2010, pp. J5, 
J24). We conclude that impacts to the meltwater lednian stonefly and 
its habitat from public visitors to Glacier NP do not constitute a 
threat now or in the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor A
    Climate change, and the associated effects of glacier loss, reduced 
streamflows, and increased water temperatures, is expected to

[[Page 18693]]

significantly reduce the occurrence of populations and extent of 
suitable habitat for the meltwater lednian stonefly in Glacier NP in 
the foreseeable future. Nearly all known recent occurrences of the 
meltwater lednian stonefly are in close proximity to glaciers that are 
projected to disappear during the next 20 years. Consequently, we 
expect that the environmental changes resulting from climate change 
will significantly alter the habitat of all extant populations of the 
meltwater lednian stonefly, and we conclude that the loss of glaciers 
represents a high-intensity threat (i.e., one that results in dramatic 
changes to the species' habitat and distribution) and that this threat 
is, and will continue to be, large in scope (most, if not all, known 
populations will be affected) now and into the foreseeable future. The 
significant reduction in glacier size observed during the past 40 years 
is evidence that the environmental changes resulting from climate 
change also may represent a current threat to this species, but we do 
not have any information on trends in the occurrence of meltwater 
lednian stonefly populations or changes in densities of specific 
populations to confirm this. In addition, we anticipate that effects of 
the environmental changes resulting from climate change on the species 
will become more pronounced, or that they will accelerate in the 
foreseeable future, as glaciers melt and eventually disappear in 
Glacier NP. In conclusion, we find that the meltwater lednian stonefly 
is likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future 
because of the environmental changes resulting from climate change.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    We are not aware of any threats involving the overutilization or 
collection of the meltwater lednian stonefly (Lednia tumana) for any 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes at this 
time. We are aware that specimens are occasionally collected for 
scientific purposes to determine its distribution and abundance (e.g., 
Baumann and Stewart 1980, pp. 655, 658; NPS 2009); however, the species 
is observed to be relatively abundant in preferred habitats (e.g., NPS 
2009). We have no information that suggests past collections, current 
collections, or any collections in the foreseeable future will result 
in population-level effects to the species. Consequently, we do not 
consider overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes to be a threat to the meltwater lednian stonefly.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

    We are not aware of any diseases that affect the meltwater lednian 
stonefly. Therefore, we do not consider disease to be a threat to the 
species now or in the foreseeable future.
    We presume that nymph and adult meltwater lednian stoneflies may 
occasionally be subject to predation by bird species such as the 
American dipper (Cinclus mexicanus). The American dipper prefers to 
feed on aquatic invertebrates in fast-moving, clear, alpine streams 
(MNHP 2010b), and the species is native to Glacier NP. As such, 
predation by American dipper on the meltwater lednian stonefly would 
represent a natural ecological interaction in the Glacier NP. We have 
no evidence that the extent of such predation, if it occurs, represents 
any population-level threat to the meltwater lednian stonefly. 
Therefore, we do not consider predation to be a threat to the species 
now or in the foreseeable future.
    In summary, there is currently no scientific evidence to indicate 
that the meltwater lednian stonefly is affected by any diseases, or 
that any avian predation that occurs constitutes an abnormal (above 
background-level) predator-prey interaction likely to have adverse 
population-wide effects. Therefore, we do not find disease or predation 
to be threats to the meltwater lednian stonefly now or in the 
forseeable future.

Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The Act requires us to examine the adequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms with respect to those existing and foreseeable threats that 
place the meltwater lednian stonefly in danger of becoming either 
endangered or threatened. The currently documented distribution of the 
species is within the boundaries of Glacier NP, which is under the 
jurisdiction of the National Park Service (NPS). Thus, there are a 
number of Federal laws and regulations that may be relevant.
National Environmental Policy Act
    All Federal agencies are required to adhere to the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for 
projects they fund, authorize, or carry out. The Council on 
Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-
1518) state that, when preparing environmental impact statements, 
agencies shall include a discussion on the environmental impacts of the 
various project alternatives, any adverse environmental effects which 
cannot be avoided, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of 
resources involved (40 CFR 1502). The NEPA itself is a disclosure law, 
and does not require subsequent minimization or mitigation measures by 
the Federal agency involved. Although the NPS may include conservation 
measures for meltwater lednian stonefly or any other species as a 
result of the NEPA process, any such measures are typically voluntary 
in nature and are not required by NEPA.
National Park Service Organic Act
    The NPS Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), as amended, 
states that the NPS ``shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal 
areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations * * * to 
conserve the scenery and the national and historic objects and the wild 
life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such 
manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the 
enjoyment of future generations.'' The current distribution of the 
meltwater lednian stonefly is entirely within the boundaries of Glacier 
NP, so the NPS Organic Act is presumed to be one Federal law of 
particular relevance to the species. Although Glacier NP does not have 
a management plan specific to the meltwater lednian stonefly, the 
habitats occupied by the species remain relatively pristine and 
generally free from direct human impacts from Glacier NP visitors (see 
discussion under Factor A). We also note that the most accessible 
meltwater lednian collection sites in Logan Creek near the Logan Pass 
Visitor Center and the Going-to-the-Sun Road (so called ``Jones Flat'' 
at Oberlin Bend) are currently closed to public use and entry to 
protect resident vegetation under Glacier NP management regulations 
(NPS 2010, pp. J5, J24). We believe that the NPS Organic Act provides 
adequate protection from the species and its habitat being directly 
destroyed or modified by most human activities, including visitor use 
and development. However, the NPS Organic Act does not address the 
primary threat to the species of habitat loss resulting from the 
environmental changes due to climate change. Therefore, the Organic Act 
does not constitute an adequate regulatory mechanism for this threat.
Clean Air Act
    On December 15, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) published in the Federal Register (74 FR 66496) a rule titled, 
``Endangerment

[[Page 18694]]

and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 
202(a) of the Clean Air Act.'' In this rule, the EPA Administrator 
found that the current and projected concentrations of the six long-
lived and directly emitted greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide, methane, 
nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur 
hexafluoride--in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare 
of current and future generations; and that the combined emissions of 
these greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle 
engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution that threatens 
public health and welfare (74 FR 66496). In effect, the EPA has 
concluded that the greenhouse gases linked to climate change are 
pollutants, whose emissions can now be subject to the Clean Air Act (42 
U.S.C. 7401 et seq.; see 74 FR 66496). However, specific regulations to 
limit greenhouse gas emissions were only proposed in 2010. At present, 
we have no basis to conclude that implementation of the Clean Air Act 
in the foreseeable future (40 years, based on global climate 
projections) will substantially reduce the current rate of global 
climate change through regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, we 
conclude that the Clean Air Act does not adequately address the primary 
threat to the meltwater lednian stonefly, namely the anticipated loss 
of thermally and hydrologically suitable habitat as a result of the 
melting of glaciers and other environmental changes that result from 
climate change in Glacier NP.
Summary of Factor D
    The existing regulatory mechanisms, especially the NPS Organic Act, 
appear to adequately protect the pristine nature of Glacier NP and 
presumably the high-alpine streams inhabited by the meltwater lednian 
stonefly. Thus, at a local or regional level we have no evidence that 
such regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect the species now or 
in the foreseeable future, and we expect that meltwater lednian 
stonefly habitat in Glacier NP will be generally protected from direct 
human disturbance. However, we consider habitat loss and modification 
resulting from the environmental changes due to climate change to 
constitute the primary threat to the species. The United States is only 
now beginning to address global climate change through the regulatory 
process (e.g., Clean Air Act). We have no information on what 
regulations may eventually be adopted, and when implemented, if they 
would address the changes in meltwater lednian stonefly habitat that 
are likely to occur in the foreseeable future. Consequently, we 
conclude that existing regulatory mechanisms are not adequate to 
address the threat of habitat loss and modification resulting from the 
environmental changes due to climate change to the meltwater lednian 
stonefly in the foreseeable future.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting The Species' 
Continued Existence

Restricted Range and Stochastic (Random) Events
    The meltwater lednian stonefly is currently considered to be a 
narrow endemic found only within Glacier NP. At present, the species' 
restricted range makes the species vulnerable to extirpation by 
localized disturbances or environmental conditions, such as fire, 
flood, and drought. We have no information on the specific effects of 
any of these disturbances on the meltwater lednian stonefly, nor any 
information on the ability of the species to recover from disturbance 
or disperse to new habitats. However, in general, organisms of alpine 
stream segments may be isolated by specific thermal or habitat criteria 
that make transfer from one stream to another difficult despite the 
physical connections that exist in dendritic stream networks (e.g., 
Hauer et al. 2007, pp. 108-110). We presume that the species' 
restricted range does not constitute a threat in itself for the 
meltwater lednian stonefly, especially as it occupies habitats that are 
generally considered pristine and that should be comparatively 
resistant and resilient to disturbance compared to more intensively 
managed landscapes. We do not consider the species' restricted range to 
be a threat at the present time, but we do anticipate that the species' 
restricted range may interact with the anticipated environmental 
changes resulting from the effects of climate change to increase the 
risk of extirpation, and therefore to become a threat in the 
foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor E
    The restricted range of the meltwater lednian stonefly does not 
necessarily constitute a threat in itself. However, the restricted 
range in concert with the threat of habitat loss and modification 
resulting from the environmental changes due to climate change is 
expected to increase the vulnerability of the species, and thus we 
anticipate this will become a threat in the foreseeable future. We are 
not aware of any additional natural or manmade factors affecting the 
species' continued existence that present a current or potential threat 
in the foreseeable future to the meltwater lednian stonefly, but we do 
consider the interaction of the species' restricted range with the 
threat of habitat loss in the foreseeable future to be a threat to the 
species under this factor.

Finding for the Meltwater Lednian Stonefly

    As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing 
whether the meltwater lednian stonefly is endangered or threatened 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We carefully 
examined the best scientific and commercial information available 
regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the species. 
We reviewed the petition, information available in our files, other 
available published and unpublished information, and we consulted with 
recognized experts and other Federal and State agencies.
    The meltwater lednian stonefly is a narrowly distributed endemic 
presently known to occur in a small number of cold, snowmelt- or 
glacier-fed, high-alpine streams in Glacier NP, Montana. Our status 
review identified threats to the species related to Factors A, D, and 
E. In particular, under Factor A, the melting of glaciers in Glacier NP 
is considered a threat to the species, now and in the foreseeable 
future, because loss of glaciers is expected to alter the thermal and 
hydrologic regimes of high-alpine streams occupied by the species. 
Higher water temperatures, seasonal or permanent stream dewatering, and 
changes in the timing and volume of snowmelt may change the existing 
habitat such that it no longer satisfies the ecological and 
physiological requirements of the species. While existing regulatory 
mechanisms provide adequate protection for the meltwater lednian 
stonefly and its habitat from direct destruction or modification 
resulting from most human activities, the existing regulatory 
mechanisms do not address the primary threat to the species, which is 
habitat loss and modification resulting from environmental changes 
caused by global climate change. Thus, under Factor D, we conclude the 
existing regulatory mechanisms do not adequately address the threat of 
habitat loss and modification in the foreseeable future. In addition, 
under Factor E we conclude that the restricted range of the species, 
while not a threat by itself, is expected to interact with the threat 
of habitat loss and modification to increase the

[[Page 18695]]

vulnerability of the species in the forseeable future.
    On the basis of the best scientific and commercial information 
available, we find that listing of the meltwater lednian stonefly as 
endangered or threatened is warranted. We will make a determination on 
the status of the species as endangered or threatened when we prepare a 
proposed listing determination. However, as explained in more detail 
below (see Preclusion and Expeditious Progress section), an immediate 
proposal of a regulation implementing this action is precluded by 
higher priority listing actions, and progress is being made to add or 
remove qualified species from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and Plants.
    We have reviewed the available information to determine if the 
existing and foreseeable threats render the species at risk of 
extinction now, such that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily 
listing the species, under section 4(b)(7) of the Act, is warranted. We 
determined that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the 
species is not warranted at this time, because the species is not under 
immediate threat of extinction. Glaciers still exist in Glacier NP and 
are expected to be present through the next decade. However, if at any 
time we determine that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily 
listing the meltwater lednian stonefly is warranted, we will initiate 
the action at that time.

Listing Priority Number

    The Service adopted guidelines on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098), 
to establish a rational system for utilizing available resources for 
the highest priority species when adding species to the Lists of 
Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying species 
listed as threatened to endangered status. These guidelines, titled 
``Endangered and Threatened Species Listing and Recovery Priority 
Guidelines,'' address the immediacy and magnitude of threats, and the 
level of taxonomic distinctiveness by assigning priority in descending 
order to monotypic genera (genus with one species), full species, and 
subspecies (or equivalently, distinct population segments of 
vertebrates).
    As a result of our analysis of the best available scientific and 
commercial information, we assigned the meltwater lednian stonefly a 
Listing Priority Number (LPN) of 4 based on our finding that the 
species faces threats that are of high magnitude but are not imminent. 
These primary threats include the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat resulting from climate 
change, and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to address 
threats from climate change.
    Under the Service's guidelines, the magnitude of threat is the 
first criterion we look at when establishing a listing priority. The 
guidelines indicate that species with the highest magnitude of threat 
are those species facing the greatest threats to their continued 
existence. These species receive the highest listing priority. We 
consider the threats that the meltwater lednian stonefly faces from 
melting glaciers and other environmental changes that result from 
climate change to be high in magnitude because of the recent 
observations of glacial ablation (shrinking) in Glacier NP and the 
projections that all glaciers in Glacier NP may disappear in the next 
20 years, and because we expect all known populations of the meltwater 
lednian stonefly to be affected by these changes.
    Under our LPN guidelines, the second criterion we consider in 
assigning a listing priority is the immediacy of threats. This 
criterion is intended to ensure that species facing actual, 
identifiable threats are given priority over those for which threats 
are only potential or for those that are intrinsically vulnerable but 
are not known to be presently facing such threats. The significant 
reduction in glacier sizes in Glacier NP observed during the past few 
decades and the changes in hydrologic patterns and water temperatures 
attributed to climate change suggests that habitat loss and 
modification may represent a current threat to the species. Because of 
its apparent dependence on glacial meltwater for survival, the 
meltwater lednian stonefly is intrinsically vulnerable to threats from 
the environmental changes resulting from climate change. However, we do 
not have sufficient empirical information on the meltwater lednian 
stonefly to evaluate whether there are any trends in the occurrence or 
abundance of the species, nor do we have any information about the 
species' response to such changes. Thus, we cannot conclude that the 
species is currently actually facing the threat of habitat loss and 
modification, which would be necessary to make a finding that the 
threat of environmental changes resulting from climate change is 
imminent. Environmental changes resulting from climate change are 
reasonably certain to occur, but we have no empirical (documented) 
evidence that the resulting threat to the species is imminent 
(ongoing). The other identified threats include inadequate regulatory 
mechanisms for addressing the environmental changes resulting from 
climate change, and the interaction of the species' restricted range 
with the threat of habitat loss resulting from climate change. These 
threats act in concert with climate change, and so they also are not 
imminent. We expect the threat of climate change to intensify in the 
foreseeable future based on projections of air temperature increases 
from current global climate models and the predicted melting of all 
glaciers in Glacier NP by the year 2030. Therefore, based on our LPN 
guidelines, the threats are not imminent (ongoing).
    The third criterion in our LPN guidelines is intended to devote 
resources to those species representing highly distinctive or isolated 
gene pools as reflected by taxonomy. The meltwater lednian stonefly 
(Lednia tumana) is a valid taxon at the species level and is currently 
recognized as a monotypic genus; thus it receives a higher priority 
than a species or subspecies.
    Therefore, we have assigned the meltwater lednian stonefly an LPN 
of 4 based on our determination that the threats are high in magnitude 
but not imminent, and because the species is recognized as a monotypic 
genus.
    We will continue to monitor the threats to the meltwater lednian 
stonefly and the species' status on an annual basis, and should the 
taxonomic status or the magnitude or imminence of the threats change, 
we will revisit our assessment of its LPN.
    Because we have assigned the meltwater lednian stonefly a LPN of 4, 
work on a proposed listing determination for the meltwater lednian 
stonefly is precluded by work on higher priority listing actions with 
absolute statutory, court-ordered, or court-approved deadlines and on 
final listing determinations for those species that were proposed for 
listing with funds from FY 2010. This work includes all the actions 
listed in the tables below under Preclusion and Expeditious Progress.

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress

    Preclusion is a function of the listing priority of a species in 
relation to the resources that are available and the cost and relative 
priority of competing demands for those resources. Thus, in any given 
fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate whether it will be possible 
to undertake work on a listing proposal regulation or whether 
promulgation of such a proposal is precluded by higher-priority listing 
actions.

[[Page 18696]]

    The resources available for listing actions are determined through 
the annual Congressional appropriations process. The appropriation for 
the Listing Program is available to support work involving the 
following listing actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 90-day and 
12-month findings on petitions to add species to the Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) or to change the 
status of a species from threatened to endangered; annual 
``resubmitted'' petition findings on prior warranted-but-precluded 
petition findings as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; 
critical habitat petition findings; proposed and final rules 
designating critical habitat; and litigation-related, administrative, 
and program-management functions (including preparing and allocating 
budgets, responding to Congressional and public inquiries, and 
conducting public outreach regarding listing and critical habitat). The 
work involved in preparing various listing documents can be extensive 
and may include, but is not limited to: Gathering and assessing the 
best scientific and commercial data available and conducting analyses 
used as the basis for our decisions; writing and publishing documents; 
and obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating public comments and peer 
review comments on proposed rules and incorporating relevant 
information into final rules. The number of listing actions that we can 
undertake in a given year also is influenced by the complexity of those 
listing actions; that is, more complex actions generally are more 
costly. The median cost for preparing and publishing a 90-day finding 
is $39,276; for a 12-month finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule with 
critical habitat, $345,000; and for a final listing rule with critical 
habitat, $305,000.
    We cannot spend more than is appropriated for the Listing Program 
without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (see 31 U.S.C. 
1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal year since 
then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on funds that may be expended 
for the Listing Program, equal to the amount expressly appropriated for 
that purpose in that fiscal year. This cap was designed to prevent 
funds appropriated for other functions under the Act (for example, 
recovery funds for removing species from the Lists), or for other 
Service programs, from being used for Listing Program actions (see 
House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st Session, July 1, 1997).
    Since FY 2002, the Service's budget has included a critical habitat 
subcap to ensure that some funds are available for other work in the 
Listing Program (``The critical habitat designation subcap will ensure 
that some funding is available to address other listing activities'' 
(House Report No. 107-103, 107th Congress, 1st Session, June 19, 
2001)). In FY 2002 and each year until FY 2006, the Service has had to 
use virtually the entire critical habitat subcap to address court-
mandated designations of critical habitat, and consequently none of the 
critical habitat subcap funds have been available for other listing 
activities. In some FYs since 2006, we have been able to use some of 
the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing 
determinations for high-priority candidate species. In other FYs, while 
we were unable to use any of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund 
proposed listing determinations, we did use some of this money to fund 
the critical habitat portion of some proposed listing determinations so 
that the proposed listing determination and proposed critical habitat 
designation could be combined into one rule, thereby being more 
efficient in our work. At this time, for FY 2011, we do not know if we 
will be able to use some of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund 
proposed listing determinations.
    We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to 
ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first 
and also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis. 
Through the listing cap, the critical habitat subcap, and the amount of 
funds needed to address court-mandated critical habitat designations, 
Congress and the courts have in effect determined the amount of money 
available for other listing activities nationwide. Therefore, the funds 
in the listing cap, other than those needed to address court-mandated 
critical habitat for already listed species, set the limits on our 
determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.
    Congress identified the availability of resources as the only basis 
for deferring the initiation of a rulemaking that is warranted. The 
Conference Report accompanying Public Law 97-304 (Endangered Species 
Act Amendments of 1982), which established the current statutory 
deadlines and the warranted-but-precluded finding, states that the 
amendments were ``not intended to allow the Secretary to delay 
commencing the rulemaking process for any reason other than that the 
existence of pending or imminent proposals to list species subject to a 
greater degree of threat would make allocation of resources to such a 
petition [that is, for a lower-ranking species] unwise.'' Although that 
statement appeared to refer specifically to the ``to the maximum extent 
practicable'' limitation on the 90-day deadline for making a 
``substantial information'' finding, that finding is made at the point 
when the Service is deciding whether or not to commence a status review 
that will determine the degree of threats facing the species, and 
therefore the analysis underlying the statement is more relevant to the 
use of the warranted-but-precluded finding, which is made when the 
Service has already determined the degree of threats facing the species 
and is deciding whether or not to commence a rulemaking.
    In FY 2011, on March 18, 2011, Congress passed a continuing 
resolution which provides funding at the FY 2010 enacted level through 
April 8, 2011. Until Congress appropriates funds for FY 2011 at a 
different level, we will fund listing work based on the FY 2010 amount. 
Thus, at this time in FY 2011, the Service anticipates an appropriation 
of $22,103,000 for the listing program based on FY 2010 appropriations. 
Of that, the Service anticipates needing to dedicate $11,632,000 for 
determinations of critical habitat for already listed species. Also 
$500,000 is appropriated for foreign species listings under the Act. 
The Service thus has $9,971,000 available to fund work in the following 
categories: compliance with court orders and court-approved settlement 
agreements requiring that petition findings or listing determinations 
be completed by a specific date; section 4 (of the Act) listing actions 
with absolute statutory deadlines; essential litigation-related, 
administrative, and listing program-management functions; and high-
priority listing actions for some of our candidate species. In FY 2010, 
the Service received many new petitions and a single petition to list 
404 species. The receipt of petitions for a large number of species is 
consuming the Service's listing funding that is not dedicated to 
meeting court-ordered commitments. Absent some ability to balance 
effort among listing duties under existing funding levels, it is 
unlikely that the Service will be able to initiate any new listing 
determination for candidate species in FY 2011.
    In 2009, the responsibility for listing foreign species under the 
Act was transferred from the Division of Scientific Authority, 
International Affairs Program, to the Endangered Species Program. 
Therefore, starting in FY 2010, we used a portion of our funding to 
work on the actions described above for listing actions related to 
foreign species. In FY 2011, we anticipate using $1,500,000 for work

[[Page 18697]]

on listing actions for foreign species which reduces funding available 
for domestic listing actions; however, currently only $500,000 has been 
allocated for this function. Although there are no foreign species 
issues included in our high-priority listing actions at this time, many 
actions have statutory or court-approved settlement deadlines, thus 
increasing their priority. The budget allocations for each specific 
listing action are identified in the Service's FY 2011 Allocation Table 
(part of our record).
    For the above reasons, funding a proposed listing determination for 
the meltwater lednian stonefly, which has an LPN of 4, is precluded by 
court-ordered and court-approved settlement agreements, listing actions 
with absolute statutory deadlines, work on final listing determinations 
for those species that were proposed for listing with funds from FY 
2011, and work on proposed listing determinations for those candidate 
species with a higher listing priority (i.e., candidate species with 
LPNs of 1 to 3).
    Based on our September 21, 1983, guidelines for assigning an LPN 
for each candidate species (48 FR 43098), we have a significant number 
of species with high priority LPNs. Using these guidelines, we assign 
each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats 
(high or moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or 
nonimminent), and taxonomic status of the species (in order of 
priority: Monotypic genus (a species that is the sole member of a 
genus); species; or part of a species (subspecies, distinct population 
segment, or significant portion of the range)). The lower the listing 
priority number, the higher the listing priority (that is, a species 
with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing priority).
    Because of the large number of high-priority species, we have 
further ranked the candidate species with an LPN of 2 by using the 
following extinction-risk type criteria: International Union for the 
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red list status/
rank, Heritage rank (provided by NatureServe), Heritage threat rank 
(provided by NatureServe), and species currently with fewer than 50 
individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. Those species with the highest 
IUCN rank (critically endangered), the highest Heritage rank (G1), the 
highest Heritage threat rank (substantial, imminent threats), and 
currently with fewer than 50 individuals, or fewer than 4 populations, 
originally comprised a group of approximately 40 candidate species 
(``Top 40''). These 40 candidate species have had the highest priority 
to receive funding to work on a proposed listing determination. As we 
work on proposed and final listing rules for those 40 candidates, we 
apply the ranking criteria to the next group of candidates with an LPN 
of 2 and 3 to determine the next set of highest priority candidate 
species. Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened 
species to endangered are lower priority, because as listed species, 
they are already afforded the protection of the Act and implementing 
regulations. However, for efficiency reasons, we may choose to work on 
a proposed rule to reclassify a species to endangered if we can combine 
this with work that is subject to a court-determined deadline.
    With our workload so much bigger than the amount of funds we have 
to accomplish it, it is important that we be as efficient as possible 
in our listing process. Therefore, as we work on proposed rules for the 
highest priority species in the next several years, we are preparing 
multi-species proposals when appropriate, and these may include species 
with lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same 
threats as a species with an LPN of 2. In addition, we take into 
consideration the availability of staff resources when we determine 
which high-priority species will receive funding to minimize the amount 
of time and resources required to complete each listing action.
    As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but 
precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made 
to add and remove qualified species to and from the Lists of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. As with our ``precluded'' finding, 
the evaluation of whether progress in adding qualified species to the 
Lists has been expeditious is a function of the resources available for 
listing and the competing demands for those funds. (Although we do not 
discuss it in detail here, we are also making expeditious progress in 
removing species from the list under the Recovery program in light of 
the resource available for delisting, which is funded by a separate 
line item in the budget of the Endangered Species Program. So far 
during FY 2011, we have completed one delisting rule.) Given the 
limited resources available for listing, we find that we are making 
expeditious progress in FY 2011 in the Listing Program. This progress 
included preparing and publishing the following determinations:

                                        FY 2011 Completed Listing Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Publication date                   Title                   Actions                   FR pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/6/2010......................  Endangered Status for the  Proposed Listing      75 FR 61664-61690
                                  Altamaha Spinymussel and   Endangered.
                                  Designation of Critical
                                  Habitat.
10/7/2010......................  12-month Finding on a      Notice of 12-month    75 FR 62070-62095
                                  Petition to list the       petition finding,
                                  Sacramento Splittail as    Not warranted.
                                  Endangered or Threatened.
10/28/2010.....................  Endangered Status and      Proposed Listing      75 FR 66481-66552
                                  Designation of Critical    Endangered
                                  Habitat for Spikedace      (uplisting).
                                  and Loach Minnow.
11/2/2010......................  90-Day Finding on a        Notice of 90-day      75 FR 67341-67343
                                  Petition to List the Bay   Petition Finding,
                                  Springs Salamander as      Not substantial.
                                  Endangered.
11/2/2010......................  Determination of           Final Listing         75 FR 67511-67550
                                  Endangered Status for      Endangered.
                                  the Georgia Pigtoe
                                  Mussel, Interrupted
                                  Rocksnail, and Rough
                                  Hornsnail and
                                  Designation of Critical
                                  Habitat.
11/2/2010......................  Listing the Rayed Bean     Proposed Listing      75 FR 67551-67583
                                  and Snuffbox as            Endangered.
                                  Endangered.
11/4/2010......................  12-Month Finding on a      Notice of 12-month    75 FR 67925-67944
                                  Petition to List Cirsium   petition finding,
                                  wrightii (Wright's Marsh   Warranted but
                                  Thistle) as Endangered     precluded.
                                  or Threatened.
12/14/2010.....................  Endangered Status for      Proposed Listing      75 FR77801-77817
                                  Dunes Sagebrush Lizard.    Endangered.
12/14/2010.....................  12-month Finding on a      Notice of 12-month    75 FR 78029-78061
                                  Petition to List the       petition finding,
                                  North American Wolverine   Warranted but
                                  as Endangered or           precluded.
                                  Threatened.

[[Page 18698]]

 
12/14/2010.....................  12-Month Finding on a      Notice of 12-month    75 FR 78093-78146
                                  Petition to List the       petition finding,
                                  Sonoran Population of      Warranted but
                                  the Desert Tortoise as     precluded.
                                  Endangered or Threatened.
12/15/2010.....................  12-Month Finding on a      Notice of 12-month    75 FR 78513-78556
                                  Petition to List           petition finding,
                                  Astragalus microcymbus     Warranted but
                                  and Astragalus             precluded.
                                  schmolliae as Endangered
                                  or Threatened.
12/28/2010.....................  Listing Seven Brazilian    Final Listing         75 FR 81793-81815
                                  Bird Species as            Endangered.
                                  Endangered Throughout
                                  Their Range.
1/4/2011.......................  90-Day Finding on a        Notice of 90-day      76 FR 304-311
                                  Petition to List the Red   Petition Finding,
                                  Knot subspecies Calidris   Not substantial.
                                  canutus roselaari as
                                  Endangered.
1/19/2011......................  Endangered Status for the  Proposed Listing      76 FR 3392-3420
                                  Sheepnose and              Endangered.
                                  Spectaclecase Mussels.
2/10/2011......................  12-Month Finding on a      Notice of 12-month    76 FR 7634-7679
                                  Petition to List the       petition finding,
                                  Pacific Walrus as          Warranted but
                                  Endangered or Threatened.  precluded.
2/17/2011......................  90-Day Finding on a        Notice of 90-day      76 FR 9309-9318
                                  Petition To List the       Petition Finding,
                                  Sand Verbena Moth as       Substantial.
                                  Endangered or Threatened.
2/22/2011......................  Determination of           Final Listing         76 FR 9681-9692
                                  Threatened Status for      Threatened.
                                  the New Zealand-
                                  Australia Distinct
                                  Population Segment of
                                  the Southern Rockhopper
                                  Penguin.
2/22/2011......................  12-Month Finding on a      Notice of 12-month    76 FR 9722-9733
                                  Petition to List Solanum   petition finding,
                                  conocarpum (marron         Warranted but
                                  bacora) as Endangered.     precluded.
2/23/2011......................  12-Month Finding on a      Notice of 12-month    76 FR 991-10003
                                  Petition to List           petition finding,
                                  Thorne's Hairstreak        Not warranted.
                                  Butterfly as Endangered.
2/23/2011......................  12-Month Finding on a      Notice of 12-month    76 FR 10166-10203
                                  Petition to List           petition finding,
                                  Astragalus hamiltonii,     Warranted but
                                  Penstemon flowersii,       precluded & Not
                                  Eriogonum soredium,        Warraned.
                                  Lepidium ostleri, and
                                  Trifolium friscanum as
                                  Endangered or Threatened.
2/24/2011......................  90-Day Finding on a        Notice of 90-day      76 FR 10299-10310
                                  Petition to List the       Petition Finding,
                                  Wild Plains Bison or       Not substantial.
                                  Each of Four Distinct
                                  Population Segments as
                                  Threatened.
2/24/2011......................  90-Day Finding on a        Notice of 90-day      76 FR 10310-10319
                                  Petition to List the       Petition Finding,
                                  Unsilvered Fritillary      Not substantial.
                                  Butterfly as Threatened
                                  or Endangered.
3/8/2011.......................  12-Month Finding on a      Notice of 12-month    76 FR 12667-12683
                                  Petition to List the Mt.   petition finding,
                                  Charleston Blue            Warranted but
                                  Butterfly as Endangered    precluded.
                                  or Threatened.
3/8/2011.......................  90-Day Finding on a        Notice of 90-day      76 FR 12683-12690
                                  Petition to List the       Petition Finding,
                                  Texas Kangaroo Rat as      Substantial.
                                  Endangered or Threatened.
3/10/2011......................  Initiation of Status       Notice of Status      76 FR 13121-31322
                                  Review for Longfin Smelt.  Review.
3/15/2011......................  Withdrawal of Proposed     Proposed rule         76 FR 14210-14268
                                  Rule to List the Flat-     withdrawal.
                                  tailed Horned Lizard as
                                  Threatened.
3/22/2011......................  12-Month Finding on a      Notice of 12-month    76 FR 15919-15932
                                  Petition to List the       petition finding,
                                  Berry Cave Salamander as   Warranted but
                                  Endangered.                precluded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our expeditious progress also includes work on listing actions that 
we funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 but have not yet been completed to 
date. These actions are listed below. Actions in the top section of the 
table are being conducted under a deadline set by a court. Actions in 
the middle section of the table are being conducted to meet statutory 
timelines, that is, timelines required under the Act. Actions in the 
bottom section of the table are high-priority listing actions. These 
actions include work primarily on species with an LPN of 2, and, as 
discussed above, selection of these species is partially based on 
available staff resources, and when appropriate, include species with a 
lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same threats 
as the species with the high priority. Including these species together 
in the same proposed rule results in considerable savings in time and 
funding, when compared to preparing separate proposed rules for each of 
them in the future.

       Actions Funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 But Not Yet Completed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Species                               Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mountain plover \4\..............  Final listing determination.
Hermes copper butterfly \3\......  12-month petition finding.
4 parrot species (military macaw,  12-month petition finding.
 yellow-billed parrot, red-
 crowned parrot, scarlet macaw)
 \5\.
4 parrot species (blue-headed      12-month petition finding.
 macaw, great green macaw, grey-
 cheeked parakeet, hyacinth
 macaw) \5\.
4 parrots species (crimson         12-month petition finding.
 shining parrot, white cockatoo,
 Philippine cockatoo, yellow-
 crested cockatoo) \5\.
Utah prairie dog (uplisting).....  90-day petition finding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 18699]]

 
                    Actions With Statutory Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Casey's june beetle..............  Final listing determination.
6 Birds from Eurasia.............  Final listing determination.
5 Bird species from Colombia and   Final listing determination.
 Ecuador.
Queen Charlotte goshawk..........  Final listing determination.
5 species southeast fish           Final listing determination.
 (Cumberland darter, rush darter,
 yellowcheek darter, chucky
 madtom, and laurel dace) \4\.
Ozark hellbender \4\.............  Final listing determination.
Altamaha spinymussel \3\.........  Final listing determination.
3 Colorado plants (Ipomopsis       Final listing determination.
 polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket),
 Penstemon debilis (Parachute
 Beardtongue), and Phacelia
 submutica (DeBeque Phacelia))
 \4\.
Salmon crested cockatoo..........  Final listing determination.
6 Birds from Peru & Bolivia......  Final listing determination.
Loggerhead sea turtle (assist      Final listing determination.
 National Marine Fisheries
 Service) \5\.
2 mussels (rayed bean (LPN = 2),   Final listing determination.
 snuffbox No LPN) \5\.
CA golden trout \4\..............  12-month petition finding.
Black-footed albatross...........  12-month petition finding.
Mojave fringe-toed lizard \1\....  12-month petition finding.
Kokanee--Lake Sammamish            12-month petition finding.
 population \1\.
Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl \1\.  12-month petition finding.
Northern leopard frog............  12-month petition finding.
Tehachapi slender salamander.....  12-month petition finding.
Coqui Llanero....................  12-month petition finding/Proposed
                                    listing.
Dusky tree vole..................  12-month petition finding.
3 MT invertebrates (meltwater      12-month petition finding.
 lednian stonefly (Lednia
 tumana), Oreohelix sp. 3,
 Oreohelix sp. 31) from 206
 species petition.
5 WY plants (Abronia ammophila,    12-month petition finding.
 Agrostis rossiae, Astragalus
 proimanthus, Boechere (Arabis)
 pusilla, Penstemon gibbensii)
 from 206 species petition.
Leatherside chub (from 206         12-month petition finding.
 species petition).
Frigid ambersnail (from 206        12-month petition finding.
 species petition) \3\.
Platte River caddisfly (from 206   12-month petition finding.
 species petition) \5\.
Gopher tortoise--eastern           12-month petition finding.
 population.
Grand Canyon scorpion (from 475    12-month petition finding.
 species petition).
Anacroneuria wipukupa (a stonefly  12-month petition finding.
 from 475 species petition) \4\.
3 Texas moths (Ursia furtiva,      12-month petition finding.
 Sphingicampa blanchardi, Agapema
 galbina) (from 475 species
 petition).
2 Texas shiners (Cyprinella sp.,   12-month petition finding.
 Cyprinella lepida) (from 475
 species petition).
3 South Arizona plants (Erigeron   12-month petition finding.
 piscaticus, Astragalus
 hypoxylus, Amoreuxia gonzalezii)
 (from 475 species petition).
5 Central Texas mussel species (3  12-month petition finding.
 from 475 species petition).
14 parrots (foreign species).....  12-month petition finding.
Striped Newt \1\.................  12-month petition finding.
Fisher--Northern Rocky Mountain    12-month petition finding.
 Range \1\.
Mohave Ground Squirrel \1\.......  12-month petition finding.
Puerto Rico Harlequin Butterfly    12-month petition finding.
 \3\.
Western gull-billed tern.........  12-month petition finding.
Ozark chinquapin (Castanea pumila  12-month petition finding.
 var. ozarkensis) \4\.
HI yellow-faced bees.............  12-month petition finding.
Giant Palouse earthworm..........  12-month petition finding.
Whitebark pine...................  12-month petition finding.
OK grass pink (Calopogon           12-month petition finding.
 oklahomensis) \1\.
Ashy storm-petrel \5\............  12-month petition finding.
Honduran emerald.................  12-month petition finding.
Southeastern pop snowy plover &    90-day petition finding.
 wintering pop. of piping plover
 \1\.
Eagle Lake trout \1\.............  90-day petition finding.
Smooth-billed ani \1\............  90-day petition finding.
32 Pacific Northwest mollusks      90-day petition finding.
 species (snails and slugs) \1\.
42 snail species (Nevada & Utah).  90-day petition finding.
Peary caribou....................  90-day petition finding.
Spring Mountains checkerspot       90-day petition finding.
 butterfly.
Spring pygmy sunfish.............  90-day petition finding.
Bay skipper......................  90-day petition finding.
Spot-tailed earless lizard.......  90-day petition finding.
Eastern small-footed bat.........  90-day petition finding.
Northern long-eared bat..........  90-day petition finding.
Prairie chub.....................  90-day petition finding.
10 species of Great Basin          90-day petition finding.
 butterfly.
6 sand dune (scarab) beetles.....  90-day petition finding.
Golden-winged warbler \4\........  90-day petition finding.
404 Southeast species............  90-day petition finding.
Franklin's bumble bee \4\........  90-day petition finding.
2 Idaho snowflies (straight        90-day petition finding.
 snowfly & Idaho snowfly) \4\.

[[Page 18700]]

 
American eel \4\.................  90-day petition finding.
Gila monster (Utah population)     90-day petition finding.
 \4\.
Arapahoe snowfly \4\.............  90-day petition finding.
Leona's little blue \4\..........  90-day petition finding.
Aztec gilia \5\..................  90-day petition finding.
White-tailed ptarmigan \5\.......  90-day petition finding.
San Bernardino flying squirrel     90-day petition finding.
 \5\.
Bicknell's thrush \5\............  90-day petition finding.
Chimpanzee.......................  90-day petition finding.
Sonoran talussnail \5\...........  90-day petition finding.
2 AZ Sky Island plants             90-day petition finding.
 (Graptopetalum bartrami & Pectis
 imberbis) \5\.
I'iwi \5\........................  90-day petition finding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      High-Priority Listing Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
19 Oahu candidate species \2\ (16  Proposed listing.
 plants, 3 damselflies) (15 with
 LPN = 2, 3 with LPN = 3, 1 with
 LPN = 9).
19 Maui-Nui candidate species \2\  Proposed listing.
 (16 plants, 3 tree snails) (14
 with LPN = 2, 2 with LPN = 3, 3
 with LPN = 8).
2 Arizona springsnails \2\         Proposed listing.
 (Pyrgulopsis bernadina (LPN =
 2), Pyrgulopsis trivialis (LPN =
 2)).
Chupadera springsnail \2\          Proposed listing.
 (Pyrgulopsis chupaderae (LPN =
 2).
8 Gulf Coast mussels (southern     Proposed listing.
 kidneyshell (LPN = 2), round
 ebonyshell (LPN = 2), Alabama
 pearlshell (LPN = 2), southern
 sandshell (LPN = 5), fuzzy
 pigtoe (LPN = 5), Choctaw bean
 (LPN = 5), narrow pigtoe (LPN =
 5), and tapered pigtoe (LPN =
 11)) \4\.
Umtanum buckwheat (LPN = 2) and    Proposed listing.
 white bluffs bladderpod (LPN =
 9) \4\.
Grotto sculpin (LPN = 2) \4\.....  Proposed listing.
2 Arkansas mussels (Neosho mucket  Proposed listing.
 (LPN = 2) & Rabbitsfoot (LPN =
 9)) \4\.
Diamond darter (LPN = 2) \4\.....  Proposed listing.
Gunnison sage-grouse (LPN = 2)     Proposed listing.
 \4\.
Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger        Proposed listing.
 Beetle (LPN = 2) \5\.
Miami blue (LPN = 3) \3\.........  Proposed listing.
Lesser prairie chicken (LPN = 2).  Proposed listing.
4 Texas salamanders (Austin blind  Proposed listing.
 salamander (LPN = 2), Salado
 salamander (LPN = 2), Georgetown
 salamander (LPN = 8), Jollyville
 Plateau (LPN = 8)) \3\.
5 SW aquatics (Gonzales Spring     Proposed listing.
 Snail (LPN = 2), Diamond Y
 springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom
 springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom
 Cave snail (LPN = 2), Diminutive
 amphipod (LPN = 2)) \3\.
2 Texas plants (Texas golden       Proposed listing.
 gladecress (Leavenworthia
 texana) (LPN = 2), Neches River
 rose-mallow (Hibiscus dasycalyx)
 (LPN = 2)) \3\.
4 AZ plants (Acuna cactus          Proposed listing.
 (Echinomastus erectocentrus var.
 acunensis) (LPN = 3), Fickeisen
 plains cactus (Pediocactus
 peeblesianus fickeiseniae) (LPN
 = 3), Lemmon fleabane (Erigeron
 lemmonii) (LPN = 8), Gierisch
 mallow (Sphaeralcea gierischii)
 (LPN = 2)) \5\.
FL bonneted bat (LPN = 2) \3\....  Proposed listing.
3 Southern FL plants (Florida      Proposed listing.
 semaphore cactus (Consolea
 corallicola) (LPN = 2),
 shellmound applecactus (Harrisia
 (= Cereus) aboriginum (=
 gracilis)) (LPN = 2), Cape Sable
 thoroughwort (Chromolaena
 frustrata) (LPN = 2)) \5\.
21 Big Island (HI) species \5\     Proposed listing.
 (includes 8 candidate species--5
 plants & 3 animals; 4 with LPN =
 2, 1 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN =
 4, 2 with LPN = 8).
12 Puget Sound prairie species (9  Proposed listing.
 subspecies of pocket gopher
 (Thomomys mazama ssp.) (LPN =
 3), streaked horned lark (LPN =
 3), Taylor's checkerspot (LPN =
 3), Mardon skipper (LPN = 8))
 \3\.
2 TN River mussels (fluted         Proposed listing.
 kidneyshell (LPN = 2), slabside
 pearlymussel (LPN = 2) \5\.
Jemez Mountain salamander (LPN =   Proposed listing.
 2) \5\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in
  previous FYs.
\2\ Although funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided
  in FY 2008 or 2009, due to the complexity of these actions and
  competing priorities, these actions are still being developed.
\3\ Partially funded with FY 2010 funds and FY 2011 funds.
\4\ Funded with FY 2010 funds.
\5\ Funded with FY 2011 funds.
 

    We have endeavored to make our listing actions as efficient and 
timely as possible, given the requirements of the relevant law and 
regulations, and constraints relating to workload and personnel. We are 
continually considering ways to streamline processes or achieve 
economies of scale, such as by batching related actions together. Given 
our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the Act, these actions 
described above collectively constitute expeditious progress.
    The meltwater lednian stonefly will be added to the list of 
candidate species upon publication of this 12-month finding. We will 
continue to monitor the status of this species as new information 
becomes available. This review will determine if a change in status is 
warranted, including the need to make prompt use of emergency listing 
procedures.
    We intend that any proposed listing action for the meltwater 
lednian stonefly will be as accurate as possible. Therefore, we will 
continue to accept additional information and comments from all 
concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or 
any other interested party concerning this finding.

[[Page 18701]]

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at 
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Montana Field 
Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Authors

    The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the 
Montana Field Office.

Authority

    The authority for this section is section 4 of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: March 21, 2011.
Gregory E. Siekaniec,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-7827 Filed 4-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P