18684 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Authority: Secs. 4, 303, 307(e), 309, and 

332, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 

U.S.C. 154, 303, 307(e), 309, and 332, unless 

otherwise noted. Interpret or apply 48 Stat. 

1064–1068, 1081–1105, as amended; 47 

U.S.C. 151–155, 301–609; 3 UST 3450, 3 UST 

4726, 12 UST 2377. 

19. Section 80.3 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b) and (e) to read 

as follows: 

§ 80.3 Other applicable rule parts of this 

chapter. 

* * * * * 

(b) Part 1. This part includes rules of 

practice and procedure for license 

applications, adjudicatory proceedings, 

procedures for reconsideration and 

review of the Commission’s actions; 

provisions concerning violation notices 

and forfeiture proceedings; and the 

environmental processing requirements 

that, together with the procedures 

specified in § 17.4(c) of this chapter, if 

applicable, must be complied with prior 

to the initiation of construction. Subpart 

Q of part 1 contains rules governing 

competitive bidding procedures for 

resolving mutually exclusive 

applications for certain initial licenses. 

* * * * * 

(e) Part 17. This part contains 

requirements for the construction, 

marking and lighting of antenna towers, 

and the environmental notification 

process that must be completed before 

filing certain antenna structure 

registration applications. 

* * * * * 

PART 87—AVIATION SERVICES 

20. The authority citation for part 87 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, and 307(e), 

unless otherwise noted. 

21. Section 87.3 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b) and (e) to read 

as follows: 

§ 87.3 Other applicable rule parts. 

* * * * * 

(b) Part 1 contains rules of practice 

and procedure for license applications, 

adjudicatory proceedings, rule making 

proceedings, procedures for 

reconsideration and review of the 

Commission’s actions; provisions 

concerning violation notices and 

forfeiture proceedings; and the 

environmental processing requirements 

that, together with the procedures 

specified in § 17.4(c) of this chapter, if 

applicable, must be complied with prior 

to the initiation of construction. 

* * * * * 

(e) Part 17 contains requirements for 

construction, marking and lighting of 

antenna towers, and the environmental 

notification process that must be 

completed before filing certain antenna 

structure registration applications. 

* * * * * 

PART 90—PRIVATE LAND MOBILE 

RADIO SERVICES 

22. The authority citation for part 90 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), 

and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 

303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7). 

23. Section 90.5 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b) and (f) to read as 

follows: 

§ 90.5 Other applicable rule parts. 

* * * * * 

(b) Part 1 includes rules of practice 

and procedure for the filing of 

applications for stations to operate in 

the Wireless Telecommunications 

Services, adjudicatory proceedings 

including hearing proceedings, and rule 

making proceedings; procedures for 

reconsideration and review of the 

Commission’s actions; provisions 

concerning violation notices and 

forfeiture proceedings; and the 

environmental processing requirements 

that, together with the procedures 

specified in § 17.4(c) of this chapter, if 

applicable, must be complied with prior 

to initiating construction. 

* * * * * 

(f) Part 17 contains requirements for 

construction, marking and lighting of 

antenna towers, and the environmental 

notification process that must be 

completed before filing certain antenna 

structure registration applications. 

* * * * * 

24. Section 90.129 is amended by 

revising paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 90.129 Supplemental information to be 

routinely submitted with applications. 

* * * * * 

(g) The environmental assessment 

required by §§ 1.1307 and 1.1311 of this 

chapter, if applicable. If an application 

filed under this part proposes the use of 

one or more new or existing antenna 

structures that require registration under 

part 17 of this chapter, any required 

environmental assessment should be 

submitted pursuant to the process set 

forth in § 17.4(c) of this chapter rather 

than with the application filed under 

this part. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–7785 Filed 4–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

18686 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 highelevation slopes well above the treeline 

(Hendricks 2003, pp. 4–5). 

Taxonomy and Evaluation of the 

Listable Entities for Bearmouth 

Mountainsnail and Byrne Resort 

Mountainsnail 

The genus Oreohelix belongs to 

phylum Mollusca, class Gastropoda, 

order Stylommatophora (terrestrial 

snails and slugs), and family 

Oreohelicidae. The genus Oreohelix 

consists of 41 recognized species 

(Turgeon et al. 1998, p. 143; Integrated 

Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) 

2010). Overall, the taxonomy of the 

genus is not well known (Chak 2007, p. 

21; Weaver 2006, p. 9), and additional 

species have been proposed in the 

primary literature (e.g., Ports 2004, 

entire), in graduate theses (e.g., Weaver 

2006, pp. 49–95), and in grey literature 

reports (e.g., Frest and Johannes 1995, 

pp. 113–140). The most extreme 

example of purported additional 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 specieslevel differences in terrestrial mollusks 

(e.g., Weaver et al. 2008, pp. 913–914). 

Thus, there is some evidence to suggest 

that the individuals she sequenced are 

part of a distinct species or subspecies. 

Unfortunately, archived individuals 

collected from the putative type location 

of Bearmouth mountainsnail (as 

described in Frest and Johannes 1995, p. 

115) are not available (Weaver 2010b, 

pers. comm.). Moreover, Frest and 

Johannes did not provide the precise 

location of any of the ‘‘type localities’’ 

(i.e., location where the specimens that 

define the species were collected) for 

the undescribed species in their 1995 

report (Frest and Johannes 1995, pp. 

113–140). Consequently, there remains 

uncertainty as to whether the 

‘‘Bearmouth mountainsnail’’ proposed 

by Frest and Johannes (1995, p. 115) 

represents the same entity that Dr. 

Weaver refers to as ‘‘Bearmouth 

mountainsnail.’’ 

Uncertainty notwithstanding, the 

Bearmouth mountainsnail is not 

included as a valid taxon in the classic 

works by Pilsbry (1916, entire; 1939, 

entire), which are still accepted as the 

most authoritative publications on the 

taxonomy of Oreohelix; nor is the 

Bearmouth mountainsnail listed among 

the Oreohelix taxa recognized by more 

current sources such as the Integrated 

Taxonomic Information System (ITIS 

2010) or the Council of Systematic 

Malacologists and the American 

Malacological Union (Turgeon et al. 

1998, p. 143 in this compilation of 

mollusk taxonomy by scientific experts). 

In summary, the entity referred to as the 

‘‘Bearmouth mountainsnail’’ has not 

been formally described as a species 

according to accepted scientific 

standards, and this entity is not widely 

recognized as a species or subspecies by 

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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

18688 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

thorough description of the type 

specimen, an evaluation of various lines 

of evidence (morphological, ecological, 

biogeographical, genetic) relevant to its 

taxonomic status, resolution of any 

discrepancies in taxonomic 

nomenclature, or a combination of these 

(e.g., Weaver 2006, pp. 49–65), and that 

the taxon be accepted as valid by 

widely-recognized sources (e.g., 

Turgeon et al. 1998, entire; ITIS 2010). 

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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 

aStream 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 (°C) (< 50 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F)) (MNHP 2010a), but 

apparently it can tolerate higher water 

temperatures (up to 15 °C (59 °F)) in 

certain situations (Hauer et al. 2007, p. 

107) for short periods of time (Giersch 

2010c, pers. comm.). Most aquatic 

invertebrates in stream environments in 

the northern Rocky Mountains exhibit 

very strong elevation (temperature) 

gradients in their distribution (e.g., 

Fagre et al. 1997, p. 763; Lowe and 

Hauer 1999, pp. 1637, 1640, 1642; 

Hauer et al. 2007, p. 110), and occur at 

the highest population density in their 

preferred temperature range. We 

presume the meltwater lednian stonefly 

exhibits a similar pattern, in terms of 

being more likely to be present and 

more abundant in the small (first order), 

cold, snowmelt-driven, alpine streams, 

and less likely to occur farther 

downstream within a drainage in larger 

habitats (second order and larger 

streams) with warmer water 

temperatures. In general, the alpine 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

18690 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

streams inhabited by the meltwater 

lednian stonefly are presumed to have 

very low nutrient concentrations (low 

nitrogen and phosphorus), reflecting the 

nutrient content of the glacial or snowmelt source (Hauer et al. 2007, pp. 107– 

108). The daytime microhabitat 

preferences of meltwater lednian 

stonefly nymphs are the underside of 

rocks or larger pieces of bark or wood 

(Baumann and Stewart 1980, p. 658). 

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 °C (1.1 °F) (IPCC 2007, p. 30). 

Warming appears to have accelerated in 

recent decades, as the linear warming 

trend over the 50 years from 1956 to 

2005 (average 0.13 °C or 0.24 °F per 

decade) is nearly twice that for the 100 

years from 1906 to 2005 (IPCC 2007, p. 

30). Climate change scenarios estimate 

that the mean air temperature could 

increase by over 3 °C (5.4 °F) by 2100 

(IPCC 2007, pp. 45–46). The IPCC also 

projects there will likely be regional 

increases in the frequency of hot 

extremes, heat waves, and heavy 

precipitation, as well as greater warming 

in high northern latitudes (IPCC 2007, 

p. 46). 

We recognize that there are scientific 

differences of opinion on many aspects 

of climate change, including the role of 

natural variability in climate. In our 

analysis, we rely primarily on synthesis 

documents (IPCC 2007, entire; ISAB 

2007, entire; Karl et al. 2009, entire) that 

present the consensus view of a large 

number of experts on climate change 

from around the world. We find that 

these synthesis reports, as well as the 

scientific papers used in, or resulting 

from, those reports represent the best 

available scientific information we can 

use to inform our decision. Where 

possible, we use empirical data or 

projections specific to Glacier NP and 

the surrounding area and focus on 

observed or expected effects on stream 

systems, as this area includes the known 

distribution of the meltwater lednian 

stonefly. 

Water temperature and hydrology 

(stream flow) influence many of the 

basic physical and biological processes 

in aquatic systems, and both are 

sensitive to environmental changes that 

result from climate change (e.g., Stewart 

et al. 2005, entire; Isaak et al. 2010, 

entire; Kaushal et al. 2010, entire). For 

ectothermic organisms like aquatic 

invertebrates, temperature sets basic 

constraints on species’ distribution and 

physiological performance (Fagre et al. 

1997, p. 763; Lowe and Hauer 1999, pp. 

1637, 1640, 1642; Hauer et al. 2007, p. 

110). Stream hydrology not only affects 

the structure of aquatic systems across 

space and time, but influences the life 

history and phenology (timing of lifecycle events) of aquatic invertebrates 

such as stoneflies (Stewart and Harper 

1996, pp. 217–218). 

Significant trends in water 

temperature and stream flow have been 

observed in the western United States 

(Stewart et al. 2005, entire; Kaushal et 

al. 2010, entire), and increased air 

temperatures and changes in 

precipitation are partially responsible. 

During the past 50 to 100 years in the 

western United States, the timing of 

runoff from snowmelt has shifted to 

occur 1 to 4 weeks earlier (Regonda et 

al. 2005, p. 380; Stewart et al. 2005, pp. 

1136, 1141; Hamlet et al. 2007, p. 1468), 

presumably as a result of increased 

temperatures (Hamlet et al. 2007, p. 

1468), increased frequency of melting 

(Mote et al. 2005, p. 45), and decreased 

snowpack (Mote et al. 2005, p. 41). 

Trends in decreased water availability 

also are apparent across the Pacific 

Northwest. For example, Luce and 

Holden (2009, entire) found a tendency 

toward more extreme droughts at 72 

percent of the stream flow gages they 

examined across Idaho, Montana, 

Oregon, and Washington. 

The western United States appears to 

be warming faster than the global 

average. In the Pacific Northwest, 

regionally averaged temperatures have 

risen 0.8 °C (1.5 °F) over the last century 

and as much as 2 °C (4 °F) in some 

areas. Since 1900, the mean annual air 

temperature for Glacier NP and the 

surrounding region has increased 1.33 

°C, which is 1.8 times the global mean 

increase (U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

2010, p. 1). Mean annual air 

temperatures are projected to increase 

by another 1.5 to 5.5 °C (3 to 10 °F) over 

the next 100 years (Karl et al. 2009, p. 

135). Warming also appears to be very 

pronounced in alpine regions globally 

(e.g., Hall and Fagre 2003, p. 134 and 

references therein). 

For the purposes of this finding, we 

consider the foreseeable future for 

anticipated environmental changes such 

as reductions in glacial meltwater and 

increases in stream temperatures to be 

approximately 40 years based on two 

factors. First, various global climate 

models (GCMs) and emissions scenarios 

give consistent predictions within that 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 BlackfootJackson glaciers, which are among the 

largest in Glacier NP, would disappear 

entirely by 2030 (Hall and Fagre 2003, 

pp. 137–138). 

Glacial shrinking varies by 

topography (structure and position of 

land underlying the glaciers), with the 

result that glaciers shrink at different 

rates (e.g., Key et al. 2002, p. J370; Hall 

and Fagre 2003, p. 136). Given the 

greater relative rate of shrinkage 

observed in smaller glaciers (e.g., USGS 

2010), we presume that if Hall and 

Fagre’s projections are correct, then 

nearly all glaciers should be gone from 

Glacier NP by 2030. We base our 

analysis as to whether climate change 

threatens the meltwater lednian stonefly 

on this assumption. 

The consequences of glacier shrinking 

and glacier loss to aquatic systems 

inhabited by the meltwater lednian 

stonefly in Glacier NP are expected to be 

significant (e.g., Fagre 2005, p. 8). 

Glaciers act as water banks, whose 

continual melt helps regulate stream 

water temperatures and maintain 

streamflows during late summer or 

drought periods (Hauer et al. 2007, p. 

107; USGS 2010). Loss of glaciers may 

lead to direct dewatering of headwater 

stream reaches, thus desiccating 

(drying) habitats currently occupied by 

lednian stoneflies that are often in close 

proximity to glaciers (e.g., Baumann and 

Stewart 1980, p. 658). Permanent 

desiccation (i.e., no streamflow) 

resulting from loss of glaciers is 

expected to result directly in the loss of 

suitable habitat for the meltwater 

lednian stonefly and the extirpation of 

populations that are directly dependent 

on surface runoff from melting glaciers. 

In some cases, streams might change 

from perennial (always flowing) to 

ephemeral (only flowing seasonally) as 

glaciers disappear (Hauer et al. 1997, p. 

909). A transition from perennial to 

ephemeral streamflow also is expected 

to reduce the extent of habitat suitable 

for the meltwater lednian stonefly; 

however, the actual response may be 

more complex in this scenario. For 

example, adults of the species emerge 

(transition from aquatic larvae to 

terrestrial winged adults) and reproduce 

in the short time period in August and 

September when the streams are not 

covered with seasonal snowpack. The 

species is thus adapted to reproduce in 

a very narrow ecological window. If the 

stream only flows seasonally, the 

species may still be able to complete its 

life cycle if the nymph (larval) stage can 

withstand seasonal stream drying. We 

do not know whether the species can 

complete its entire life cycle within 1 

year (univoltine) or across more than 1 

year (semivoltine), nor do we have 

projections for which streams may dry 

seasonally in Glacier NP. Therefore, at 

this time we cannot accurately predict 

the response of the species in cases 

where streams change from perennial to 

ephemeral. However, we do presume 

that this change will, at a minimum, 

reduce the distribution and abundance 

of the species. 

Loss of glaciers also may indirectly 

affect alpine streams by changing the 

riparian vegetation and nutrient cycling 

in stream ecosystems. For example, the 

reduced snowpacks that lead to glacier 

recession are predicted to allow highelevation trees to become established 

above the current treeline and in 

subalpine meadows, and thus to reduce 

the diversity of herbaceous plants (Hall 

and Fagre 2003, pp. 138–139). Changes 

in riparian vegetation (such as a shift 

from deciduous to coniferous 

vegetation) may affect nutrient cycling 

in headwater streams and the quality of 

food resources available to herbivorous 

aquatic insects (e.g., Hisabae et al. 2010, 

pp. 5–7), such as the meltwater lednian 

stonefly and other aquatic 

macroinvertebrates. 

Changes to Streamflow and Water 

Temperature 

Reduced water volume of snowmelt 

runoff from glaciers (Fagre 2005, p. 7), 

combined with earlier runoff (e.g., Fagre 

2005, p. 1) and increases in 

temperatures expected under climate 

change (Karl et al. 2009, p. 135), may 

result in water temperatures above the 

physiological limits for survival or 

optimal growth for the meltwater 

lednian stonefly, which is a cold-water 

species (MNHP 2010a). Given the strong 

temperature gradients that influence the 

distribution of aquatic invertebrates 

(Fagre et al. 1997, p. 763; Lowe and 

Hauer 1999, pp. 1637, 1640, 1642; 

Hauer et al. 2007, p. 110) and our 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

18692 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

assumption that the meltwater lednian 

stonefly responds similarly to these 

types of gradients, we expect that there 

will be major changes in invertebrate 

communities, with species that 

currently occupy more downstream 

reaches shifting their distributions to 

higher elevations to track changing 

thermal regimes (e.g., Fagre 2005, p. 7). 

One likely result is the displacement or 

extirpation or both of stenothermic 

species that occupy headwater stream 

reaches (such as the meltwater lednian 

stonefly), due to thermal conditions that 

become unsuitable, encroaching aquatic 

invertebrate species that may be 

superior competitors, or changed 

thermal conditions that may favor the 

encroaching species in competitive 

interactions between the species (socalled condition-specific competition). 

Consequently, we infer that changes in 

the timing and volume of streamflow 

coupled with increased summer water 

temperatures will reduce the extent of 

suitable habitat and result in the 

extirpation of some meltwater lednian 

stonefly populations. 

In summary, we expect environmental 

changes resulting from climate change 

to affect the meltwater lednian stonefly 

through loss of glaciers, which can lead 

to the permanent or seasonal drying of 

currently occupied habitats, and 

through interrelated alterations to 

existing hydrologic and thermal 

regimes, which will reduce the extent of 

habitat suitable for this species because 

it has very specific thermal 

requirements (i.e., it is a cold-water 

obligate). Environmental changes 

resulting from climate change are 

ongoing based on the documented 

shrinking of glaciers in Glacier NP, and 

are expected to continue in the 

foreseeable future in Glacier NP (e.g., 

Fagre and Hall 2003, entire) and across 

western North America (USGS 2010, 

p.1; Karl et al. 2009, p. 135). 

Consequently, we conclude that the 

threat of current and future 

environmental changes resulting from 

climate change occurs over the entire 

range of the species. This threat has 

likely reduced the amount of suitable 

habitat for the meltwater lednian 

stonefly, based on the documented 

extent of glacial melting. However, data 

on the species is sparse and limited to 

a handful of observations (e.g., see Table 

1 above). Thus, we have no empirical 

basis for evaluating whether there are 

any trends in the occurrence or 

abundance of the species, nor can we 

speak to whether environmental 

changes resulting from climate change 

have actually affected populations. We 

reason that future environmental 

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 humanbuilt structures; thus we conclude that 

maintenance and improvement of other 

Glacier NP facilities and structures does 

not constitute a threat to the meltwater 

lednian stonefly or its habitat now or in 

the foreseeable future. 

Glacier National Park Visitor Impacts 

Between 2000 to 2008, Glacier NP 

averaged more than 1.8 million visitors 

annually (NPS 2008). Many of the recent 

collection sites for the meltwater 

lednian stonefly (e.g., Logan and 

Reynolds Creeks; see Table 1 above) are 

near visitor centers or adjacent to 

popular hiking trails. Theoretically, 

human activity (wading) in streams by 

anglers or hikers could disturb 

meltwater lednian stonefly habitat. 

However, we consider it unlikely that 

many Glacier NP visitors would actually 

wade in stream habitats where the 

species has been collected, because the 

sites are in small, high-elevation streams 

situated in rugged terrain, and most 

would not be suitable for angling. In 

addition, the sites are typically snow 

covered into late July or August (Giersch 

2010a, pers. comm.), and the alpine 

areas begin to accumulate snowpack in 

the fall, so the sites occupied by the 

stonefly are not accessible for more than 

a few months. We also note that the 

most accessible collection sites in Logan 

Creek near the Logan Pass Visitor Center 

and the Going-to-the-Sun Road (so 

called ‘‘Jones Flat’’ at Oberlin Bend) are 

currently closed to public use and entry 

to protect resident vegetation (NPS 

2010, pp. J5, J24). We conclude that 

impacts to the meltwater lednian 

stonefly and its habitat from public 

visitors to Glacier NP do not constitute 

a threat now or in the foreseeable future. 

Summary of Factor A 

Climate change, and the associated 

effects of glacier loss, reduced 

streamflows, and increased water 

temperatures, is expected to 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 highintensity threat (i.e., one that results in 

dramatic changes to the species’ habitat 

and distribution) and that this threat is, 

and will continue to be, large in scope 

(most, if not all, known populations will 

be affected) now and into the 

foreseeable future. The significant 

reduction in glacier size observed 

during the past 40 years is evidence that 

the environmental changes resulting 

from climate change also may represent 

a current threat to this species, but we 

do not have any information on trends 

in the occurrence of meltwater lednian 

stonefly populations or changes in 

densities of specific populations to 

confirm this. In addition, we anticipate 

that effects of the environmental 

changes resulting from climate change 

on the species will become more 

pronounced, or that they will accelerate 

in the foreseeable future, as glaciers 

melt and eventually disappear in 

Glacier NP. In conclusion, we find that 

the meltwater lednian stonefly is likely 

to become in danger of extinction in the 

foreseeable future because of the 

environmental changes resulting from 

climate change. 

Factor B. Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

We are not aware of any threats 

involving the overutilization or 

collection of the meltwater lednian 

stonefly (Lednia tumana) for any 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes at this time. We 

are aware that specimens are 

occasionally collected for scientific 

purposes to determine its distribution 

and abundance (e.g., Baumann and 

Stewart 1980, pp. 655, 658; NPS 2009); 

however, the species is observed to be 

relatively abundant in preferred habitats 

(e.g., NPS 2009). We have no 

information that suggests past 

collections, current collections, or any 

collections in the foreseeable future will 

result in population-level effects to the 

species. Consequently, we do not 

consider overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

18694 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

and Cause or Contribute Findings for 

Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) 

of the Clean Air Act.’’ In this rule, the 

EPA Administrator found that the 

current and projected concentrations of 

the six long-lived and directly emitted 

greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, 

methane, nitrous oxide, 

hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, 

and sulfur hexafluoride—in the 

atmosphere threaten the public health 

and welfare of current and future 

generations; and that the combined 

emissions of these greenhouse gases 

from new motor vehicles and new motor 

vehicle engines contribute to the 

greenhouse gas pollution that threatens 

public health and welfare (74 FR 

66496). In effect, the EPA has concluded 

that the greenhouse gases linked to 

climate change are pollutants, whose 

emissions can now be subject to the 

Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.; 

see 74 FR 66496). However, specific 

regulations to limit greenhouse gas 

emissions were only proposed in 2010. 

At present, we have no basis to 

conclude that implementation of the 

Clean Air Act in the foreseeable future 

(40 years, based on global climate 

projections) will substantially reduce 

the current rate of global climate change 

through regulation of greenhouse gas 

emissions. Thus, we conclude that the 

Clean Air Act does not adequately 

address the primary threat to the 

meltwater lednian stonefly, namely the 

anticipated loss of thermally and 

hydrologically suitable habitat as a 

result of the melting of glaciers and 

other environmental changes that result 

from climate change in Glacier NP. 

Summary of Factor D 

The existing regulatory mechanisms, 

especially the NPS Organic Act, appear 

to adequately protect the pristine nature 

of Glacier NP and presumably the highalpine streams inhabited by the 

meltwater lednian stonefly. Thus, at a 

local or regional level we have no 

evidence that such regulatory 

mechanisms are inadequate to protect 

the species now or in the foreseeable 

future, and we expect that meltwater 

lednian stonefly habitat in Glacier NP 

will be generally protected from direct 

human disturbance. However, we 

consider habitat loss and modification 

resulting from the environmental 

changes due to climate change to 

constitute the primary threat to the 

species. The United States is only now 

beginning to address global climate 

change through the regulatory process 

(e.g., Clean Air Act). We have no 

information on what regulations may 

eventually be adopted, and when 

implemented, if they would address the 

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, highalpine streams in Glacier NP, Montana. 

Our status review identified threats to 

the species related to Factors A, D, and 

E. In particular, under Factor A, the 

melting of glaciers in Glacier NP is 

considered a threat to the species, now 

and in the foreseeable future, because 

loss of glaciers is expected to alter the 

thermal and hydrologic regimes of highalpine streams occupied by the species. 

Higher water temperatures, seasonal or 

permanent stream dewatering, and 

changes in the timing and volume of 

snowmelt may change the existing 

habitat such that it no longer satisfies 

the ecological and physiological 

requirements of the species. While 

existing regulatory mechanisms provide 

adequate protection for the meltwater 

lednian stonefly and its habitat from 

direct destruction or modification 

resulting from most human activities, 

the existing regulatory mechanisms do 

not address the primary threat to the 

species, which is habitat loss and 

modification resulting from 

environmental changes caused by global 

climate change. Thus, under Factor D, 

we conclude the existing regulatory 

mechanisms do not adequately address 

the threat of habitat loss and 

modification in the foreseeable future. 

In addition, under Factor E we conclude 

that the restricted range of the species, 

while not a threat by itself, is expected 

to interact with the threat of habitat loss 

and modification to increase the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 courtapproved deadlines and on final listing 

determinations for those species that 

were proposed for listing with funds 

from FY 2010. This work includes all 

the actions listed in the tables below 

under Preclusion and Expeditious 

Progress. 

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress 

Preclusion is a function of the listing 

priority of a species in relation to the 

resources that are available and the cost 

and relative priority of competing 

demands for those resources. Thus, in 

any given fiscal year (FY), multiple 

factors dictate whether it will be 

possible to undertake work on a listing 

proposal regulation or whether 

promulgation of such a proposal is 

precluded by higher-priority listing 

actions. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

18696 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

The resources available for listing 

actions are determined through the 

annual Congressional appropriations 

process. The appropriation for the 

Listing Program is available to support 

work involving the following listing 

actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 

90-day and 12-month findings on 

petitions to add species to the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants (Lists) or to change the status 

of a species from threatened to 

endangered; annual ‘‘resubmitted’’ 

petition findings on prior warrantedbut-precluded petition findings as 

required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of 

the Act; critical habitat petition 

findings; proposed and final rules 

designating critical habitat; and 

litigation-related, administrative, and 

program-management functions 

(including preparing and allocating 

budgets, responding to Congressional 

and public inquiries, and conducting 

public outreach regarding listing and 

critical habitat). The work involved in 

preparing various listing documents can 

be extensive and may include, but is not 

limited to: Gathering and assessing the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available and conducting analyses used 

as the basis for our decisions; writing 

and publishing documents; and 

obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating 

public comments and peer review 

comments on proposed rules and 

incorporating relevant information into 

final rules. The number of listing 

actions that we can undertake in a given 

year also is influenced by the 

complexity of those listing actions; that 

is, more complex actions generally are 

more costly. The median cost for 

preparing and publishing a 90-day 

finding is $39,276; for a 12-month 

finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule 

with critical habitat, $345,000; and for 

a final listing rule with critical habitat, 

$305,000. 

We cannot spend more than is 

appropriated for the Listing Program 

without violating the Anti-Deficiency 

Act (see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In 

addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal 

year since then, Congress has placed a 

statutory cap on funds that may be 

expended for the Listing Program, equal 

to the amount expressly appropriated 

for that purpose in that fiscal year. This 

cap was designed to prevent funds 

appropriated for other functions under 

the Act (for example, recovery funds for 

removing species from the Lists), or for 

other Service programs, from being used 

for Listing Program actions (see House 

Report 105–163, 105th Congress, 1st 

Session, July 1, 1997). 

Since FY 2002, the Service’s budget 

has included a critical habitat subcap to 

ensure that some funds are available for 

other work in the Listing Program (‘‘The 

critical habitat designation subcap will 

ensure that some funding is available to 

address other listing activities’’ (House 

Report No. 107–103, 107th Congress, 1st 

Session, June 19, 2001)). In FY 2002 and 

each year until FY 2006, the Service has 

had to use virtually the entire critical 

habitat subcap to address courtmandated designations of critical 

habitat, and consequently none of the 

critical habitat subcap funds have been 

available for other listing activities. In 

some FYs since 2006, we have been able 

to use some of the critical habitat 

subcap funds to fund proposed listing 

determinations for high-priority 

candidate species. In other FYs, while 

we were unable to use any of the critical 

habitat subcap funds to fund proposed 

listing determinations, we did use some 

of this money to fund the critical habitat 

portion of some proposed listing 

determinations so that the proposed 

listing determination and proposed 

critical habitat designation could be 

combined into one rule, thereby being 

more efficient in our work. At this time, 

for FY 2011, we do not know if we will 

be able to use some of the critical 

habitat subcap funds to fund proposed 

listing determinations. 

We make our determinations of 

preclusion on a nationwide basis to 

ensure that the species most in need of 

listing will be addressed first and also 

because we allocate our listing budget 

on a nationwide basis. Through the 

listing cap, the critical habitat subcap, 

and the amount of funds needed to 

address court-mandated critical habitat 

designations, Congress and the courts 

have in effect determined the amount of 

money available for other listing 

activities nationwide. Therefore, the 

funds in the listing cap, other than those 

needed to address court-mandated 

critical habitat for already listed species, 

set the limits on our determinations of 

preclusion and expeditious progress. 

Congress identified the availability of 

resources as the only basis for deferring 

the initiation of a rulemaking that is 

warranted. The Conference Report 

accompanying Public Law 97–304 

(Endangered Species Act Amendments 

of 1982), which established the current 

statutory deadlines and the warrantedbut-precluded finding, states that the 

amendments were ‘‘not intended to 

allow the Secretary to delay 

commencing the rulemaking process for 

any reason other than that the existence 

of pending or imminent proposals to list 

species subject to a greater degree of 

threat would make allocation of 

resources to such a petition [that is, for 

a lower-ranking species] unwise.’’ 

Although that statement appeared to 

refer specifically to the ‘‘to the 

maximum extent practicable’’ limitation 

on the 90-day deadline for making a 

‘‘substantial information’’ finding, that 

finding is made at the point when the 

Service is deciding whether or not to 

commence a status review that will 

determine the degree of threats facing 

the species, and therefore the analysis 

underlying the statement is more 

relevant to the use of the warranted-butprecluded finding, which is made when 

the Service has already determined the 

degree of threats facing the species and 

is deciding whether or not to commence 

a rulemaking. 

In FY 2011, on March 18, 2011, 

Congress passed a continuing resolution 

which provides funding at the FY 2010 

enacted level through April 8, 2011. 

Until Congress appropriates funds for 

FY 2011 at a different level, we will 

fund listing work based on the FY 2010 

amount. Thus, at this time in FY 2011, 

the Service anticipates an appropriation 

of $22,103,000 for the listing program 

based on FY 2010 appropriations. Of 

that, the Service anticipates needing to 

dedicate $11,632,000 for determinations 

of critical habitat for already listed 

species. Also $500,000 is appropriated 

for foreign species listings under the 

Act. The Service thus has $9,971,000 

available to fund work in the following 

categories: compliance with court orders 

and court-approved settlement 

agreements requiring that petition 

findings or listing determinations be 

completed by a specific date; section 4 

(of the Act) listing actions with absolute 

statutory deadlines; essential litigationrelated, administrative, and listing 

program-management functions; and 

high-priority listing actions for some of 

our candidate species. In FY 2010, the 

Service received many new petitions 

and a single petition to list 404 species. 

The receipt of petitions for a large 

number of species is consuming the 

Service’s listing funding that is not 

dedicated to meeting court-ordered 

commitments. Absent some ability to 

balance effort among listing duties 

under existing funding levels, it is 

unlikely that the Service will be able to 

initiate any new listing determination 

for candidate species in FY 2011. 

In 2009, the responsibility for listing 

foreign species under the Act was 

transferred from the Division of 

Scientific Authority, International 

Affairs Program, to the Endangered 

Species Program. Therefore, starting in 

FY 2010, we used a portion of our 

funding to work on the actions 

described above for listing actions 

related to foreign species. In FY 2011, 

we anticipate using $1,500,000 for work 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 courtordered and court-approved settlement 

agreements, listing actions with absolute 

statutory deadlines, work on final listing 

determinations for those species that 

were proposed for listing with funds 

from FY 2011, and work on proposed 

listing determinations for those 

candidate species with a higher listing 

priority (i.e., candidate species with 

LPNs of 1 to 3). 

Based on our September 21, 1983, 

guidelines for assigning an LPN for each 

candidate species (48 FR 43098), we 

have a significant number of species 

with high priority LPNs. Using these 

guidelines, we assign each candidate an 

LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the 

magnitude of threats (high or moderate 

to low), immediacy of threats (imminent 

or nonimminent), and taxonomic status 

of the species (in order of priority: 

Monotypic genus (a species that is the 

sole member of a genus); species; or part 

of a species (subspecies, distinct 

population segment, or significant 

portion of the range)). The lower the 

listing priority number, the higher the 

listing priority (that is, a species with an 

LPN of 1 would have the highest listing 

priority). 

Because of the large number of highpriority species, we have further ranked 

the candidate species with an LPN of 2 

by using the following extinction-risk 

type criteria: International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature and Natural 

Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank, 

Heritage rank (provided by 

NatureServe), Heritage threat rank 

(provided by NatureServe), and species 

currently with fewer than 50 

individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. 

Those species with the highest IUCN 

rank (critically endangered), the highest 

Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage 

threat rank (substantial, imminent 

threats), and currently with fewer than 

50 individuals, or fewer than 4 

populations, originally comprised a 

group of approximately 40 candidate 

species (‘‘Top 40’’). These 40 candidate 

species have had the highest priority to 

receive funding to work on a proposed 

listing determination. As we work on 

proposed and final listing rules for those 

40 candidates, we apply the ranking 

criteria to the next group of candidates 

with an LPN of 2 and 3 to determine the 

next set of highest priority candidate 

species. Finally, proposed rules for 

reclassification of threatened species to 

endangered are lower priority, because 

as listed species, they are already 

afforded the protection of the Act and 

implementing regulations. However, for 

efficiency reasons, we may choose to 

work on a proposed rule to reclassify a 

species to endangered if we can 

combine this with work that is subject 

to a court-determined deadline. 

With our workload so much bigger 

than the amount of funds we have to 

accomplish it, it is important that we be 

as efficient as possible in our listing 

process. Therefore, as we work on 

proposed rules for the highest priority 

species in the next several years, we are 

preparing multi-species proposals when 

appropriate, and these may include 

species with lower priority if they 

overlap geographically or have the same 

threats as a species with an LPN of 2. 

In addition, we take into consideration 

the availability of staff resources when 

we determine which high-priority 

species will receive funding to 

minimize the amount of time and 

resources required to complete each 

listing action. 

As explained above, a determination 

that listing is warranted but precluded 

must also demonstrate that expeditious 

progress is being made to add and 

remove qualified species to and from 

the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants. As with our 

‘‘precluded’’ finding, the evaluation of 

whether progress in adding qualified 

species to the Lists has been expeditious 

is a function of the resources available 

for listing and the competing demands 

for those funds. (Although we do not 

discuss it in detail here, we are also 

making expeditious progress in 

removing species from the list under the 

Recovery program in light of the 

resource available for delisting, which is 

funded by a separate line item in the 

budget of the Endangered Species 

Program. So far during FY 2011, we 

have completed one delisting rule.) 

Given the limited resources available for 

listing, we find that we are making 

expeditious progress in FY 2011 in the 

Listing Program. This progress included 

preparing and publishing the following 

determinations: 

FY 2011 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS

Publication date Title Actions FR pages 

10/6/2010 ................. Endangered Status for the Altamaha Spinymussel and Designation of Critical Habitat.Proposed Listing Endangered .. 75 FR 61664–61690 

10/7/2010 ................. 12-month Finding on a Petition to list the Sacramento Splittail 

as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition 

finding, Not warranted.

75 FR 62070–62095 

10/28/2010 ............... Endangered Status and Designation of Critical Habitat for 

Spikedace and Loach Minnow.

Proposed Listing Endangered 

(uplisting).

75 FR 66481–66552 

11/2/2010 ................. 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Bay Springs Salamander as Endangered.Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial.75 FR 67341–67343 

11/2/2010 ................. Determination of Endangered Status for the Georgia Pigtoe 

Mussel, Interrupted Rocksnail, and Rough Hornsnail and 

Designation of Critical Habitat.

Final Listing Endangered .......... 75 FR 67511–67550 

11/2/2010 ................. Listing the Rayed Bean and Snuffbox as Endangered ............... Proposed Listing Endangered .. 75 FR 67551–67583 

11/4/2010 ................. 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Cirsium wrightii (Wright’s 

Marsh Thistle) as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition 

finding, Warranted but precluded.

75 FR 67925–67944 

12/14/2010 ............... Endangered Status for Dunes Sagebrush Lizard ....................... Proposed Listing Endangered .. 75 FR77801–77817 

12/14/2010 ............... 12-month Finding on a Petition to List the North American Wolverine as Endangered or Threatened.Notice of 12-month petition 

finding, Warranted but precluded.

75 FR 78029–78061 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

18698 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

FY 2011 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued 

Publication date Title Actions FR pages 

12/14/2010 ............... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Sonoran Population 

of the Desert Tortoise as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition 

finding, Warranted but precluded.

75 FR 78093–78146 

12/15/2010 ............... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Astragalus microcymbus 

and Astragalus schmolliae as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition 

finding, Warranted but precluded.

75 FR 78513–78556 

12/28/2010 ............... Listing Seven Brazilian Bird Species as Endangered Throughout Their Range.Final Listing Endangered .......... 75 FR 81793–81815 

1/4/2011 ................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Red Knot subspecies 

Calidris canutus roselaari as Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial.76 FR 304–311 

1/19/2011 ................. Endangered Status for the Sheepnose and Spectaclecase 

Mussels.

Proposed Listing Endangered .. 76 FR 3392–3420 

2/10/2011 ................. 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Pacific Walrus as 

Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition 

finding, Warranted but precluded.

76 FR 7634–7679 

2/17/2011 ................. 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Sand Verbena Moth 

as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial.76 FR 9309–9318 

2/22/2011 ................. Determination of Threatened Status for the New Zealand-Australia Distinct Population Segment of the Southern 

Rockhopper Penguin.

Final Listing Threatened ........... 76 FR 9681–9692 

2/22/2011 ................. 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Solanum conocarpum 

(marron bacora) as Endangered.

Notice of 12-month petition 

finding, Warranted but precluded.

76 FR 9722–9733 

2/23/2011 ................. 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Thorne’s Hairstreak Butterfly as Endangered.Notice of 12-month petition 

finding, Not warranted.

76 FR 991–10003 

2/23/2011 ................. 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Astragalus hamiltonii, 

Penstemon flowersii, Eriogonum soredium, Lepidium ostleri, 

and Trifolium friscanum as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition 

finding, Warranted but precluded & Not Warraned.

76 FR 10166–10203 

2/24/2011 ................. 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Wild Plains Bison or 

Each of Four Distinct Population Segments as Threatened.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial.76 FR 10299–10310 

2/24/2011 ................. 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Unsilvered Fritillary 

Butterfly as Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial.76 FR 10310–10319 

3/8/2011 ................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Mt. Charleston Blue 

Butterfly as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition 

finding, Warranted but precluded.

76 FR 12667–12683 

3/8/2011 ................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Texas Kangaroo Rat 

as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial.76 FR 12683–12690 

3/10/2011 ................. Initiation of Status Review for Longfin Smelt .............................. Notice of Status Review ........... 76 FR 13121–31322 

3/15/2011 ................. Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List the Flat-tailed Horned Lizard as Threatened.Proposed rule withdrawal ......... 76 FR 14210–14268 

3/22/2011 ................. 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Berry Cave Salamander as Endangered.Notice of 12-month petition 

finding, Warranted but precluded.

76 FR 15919–15932 

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 highpriority listing actions. These actions 

include work primarily on species with 

an LPN of 2, and, as discussed above, 

selection of these species is partially 

based on available staff resources, and 

when appropriate, include species with 

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, yellow-billed parrot, red-crowned parrot, scarlet macaw) 5 ...................................... 12-month petition finding. 

4 parrot species (blue-headed macaw, great green macaw, grey-cheeked parakeet, hyacinth macaw) 5 ................... 12-month petition finding. 

4 parrots species (crimson shining parrot, white cockatoo, Philippine cockatoo, yellow-crested cockatoo) 5 .............. 12-month petition finding. 

Utah prairie dog (uplisting) ............................................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 18699 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 AND FY 2011 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued 

Species Action 

Actions With Statutory Deadlines 

Casey’s june beetle ........................................................................................................................................................ Final listing determination. 

6 Birds from Eurasia ....................................................................................................................................................... Final listing determination. 

5 Bird species from Colombia and Ecuador .................................................................................................................. Final listing determination. 

Queen Charlotte goshawk .............................................................................................................................................. Final listing determination. 

5 species southeast fish (Cumberland darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, and laurel dace) 4 .. Final listing determination. 

Ozark hellbender 4 .......................................................................................................................................................... Final listing determination. 

Altamaha spinymussel 3 .................................................................................................................................................. Final listing determination. 

3 Colorado plants (Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket), Penstemon debilis (Parachute Beardtongue), and 

Phacelia submutica (DeBeque Phacelia)) 4.

Final listing determination. 

Salmon crested cockatoo ............................................................................................................................................... Final listing determination. 

6 Birds from Peru & Bolivia ............................................................................................................................................ Final listing determination. 

Loggerhead sea turtle (assist National Marine Fisheries Service) 5 .............................................................................. Final listing determination. 

2 mussels (rayed bean (LPN = 2), snuffbox No LPN) 5 ................................................................................................. Final listing determination. 

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 population 1 ..................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

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 lednian stonefly (Lednia tumana), Oreohelix sp. 3, Oreohelix sp. 31) from 206 species petition.12-month petition finding. 

5 WY plants (Abronia ammophila, Agrostis rossiae, Astragalus proimanthus, Boechere (Arabis) pusilla, Penstemon 

gibbensii) from 206 species petition.

12-month petition finding. 

Leatherside chub (from 206 species petition) ................................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Frigid ambersnail (from 206 species petition) 3 .............................................................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

Platte River caddisfly (from 206 species petition) 5 ........................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Gopher tortoise—eastern population .............................................................................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

Grand Canyon scorpion (from 475 species petition) ..................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Anacroneuria wipukupa (a stonefly from 475 species petition) 4 ................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

3 Texas moths (Ursia furtiva, Sphingicampa blanchardi, Agapema galbina) (from 475 species petition) .................... 12-month petition finding. 

2 Texas shiners (Cyprinella sp., Cyprinella lepida) (from 475 species petition) ........................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

3 South Arizona plants (Erigeron piscaticus, Astragalus hypoxylus, Amoreuxia gonzalezii) (from 475 species petition).12-month petition finding. 

5 Central Texas mussel species (3 from 475 species petition) ..................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

14 parrots (foreign species) ............................................................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Striped Newt 1 ................................................................................................................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

Fisher—Northern Rocky Mountain Range 1 ................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Mohave Ground Squirrel 1 .............................................................................................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

Puerto Rico Harlequin Butterfly 3 .................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Western gull-billed tern ................................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Ozark chinquapin (Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis) 4 ................................................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

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 oklahomensis) 1 ................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Ashy storm-petrel 5 ......................................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Honduran emerald .......................................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Southeastern pop snowy plover & wintering pop. of piping plover 1 ............................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

Eagle Lake trout 1 ........................................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Smooth-billed ani 1 .......................................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

32 Pacific Northwest mollusks species (snails and slugs) 1 .......................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

42 snail species (Nevada & Utah) .................................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

Peary caribou .................................................................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

Spring Mountains checkerspot butterfly ......................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

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 butterfly ................................................................................................................................ 90-day petition finding. 

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 snowfly & Idaho snowfly) 4 .................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

18700 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 AND FY 2011 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued 

Species Action 

American eel 4 ................................................................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

Gila monster (Utah population) 4 .................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

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 5 ...................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

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 (Graptopetalum bartrami & Pectis imberbis) 5 .......................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

I’iwi 5 ................................................................................................................................................................................ 90-day petition finding. 

High-Priority Listing Actions 

19 Oahu candidate species 2 (16 plants, 3 damselflies) (15 with LPN = 2, 3 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN = 9) ............. Proposed listing. 

19 Maui-Nui candidate species 2 (16 plants, 3 tree snails) (14 with LPN = 2, 2 with LPN = 3, 3 with LPN = 8) ......... Proposed listing. 

2 Arizona springsnails 2 (Pyrgulopsis bernadina (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis trivialis (LPN = 2)) ........................................ Proposed listing. 

Chupadera springsnail 2 (Pyrgulopsis chupaderae (LPN = 2) ....................................................................................... Proposed listing. 

8 Gulf Coast mussels (southern kidneyshell (LPN = 2), round ebonyshell (LPN = 2), Alabama pearlshell (LPN = 2), 

southern sandshell (LPN = 5), fuzzy pigtoe (LPN = 5), Choctaw bean (LPN = 5), narrow pigtoe (LPN = 5), and 

tapered pigtoe (LPN = 11)) 4.

Proposed listing. 

Umtanum buckwheat (LPN = 2) and white bluffs bladderpod (LPN = 9) 4 .................................................................... Proposed listing. 

Grotto sculpin (LPN = 2) 4 .............................................................................................................................................. Proposed listing. 

2 Arkansas mussels (Neosho mucket (LPN = 2) & Rabbitsfoot (LPN = 9)) 4 ............................................................... Proposed listing. 

Diamond darter (LPN = 2) 4 ............................................................................................................................................ Proposed listing. 

Gunnison sage-grouse (LPN = 2) 4 ................................................................................................................................ Proposed listing. 

Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Beetle (LPN = 2) 5 .......................................................................................................... Proposed listing. 

Miami blue (LPN = 3) 3 ................................................................................................................................................... Proposed listing. 

Lesser prairie chicken (LPN = 2) ................................................................................................................................... Proposed listing. 

4 Texas salamanders (Austin blind salamander (LPN = 2), Salado salamander (LPN = 2), Georgetown salamander 

(LPN = 8), Jollyville Plateau (LPN = 8)) 3.

Proposed listing. 

5 SW aquatics (Gonzales Spring Snail (LPN = 2), Diamond Y springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom springsnail (LPN = 

2), Phantom Cave snail (LPN = 2), Diminutive amphipod (LPN = 2)) 3.

Proposed listing. 

2 Texas plants (Texas golden gladecress (Leavenworthia texana) (LPN = 2), Neches River rose-mallow (Hibiscus 

dasycalyx) (LPN = 2)) 3.

Proposed listing. 

4 AZ plants (Acuna cactus (Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis) (LPN = 3), Fickeisen plains cactus 

(Pediocactus peeblesianus fickeiseniae) (LPN = 3), Lemmon fleabane (Erigeron lemmonii) (LPN = 8), Gierisch 

mallow (Sphaeralcea gierischii) (LPN = 2)) 5.

Proposed listing. 

FL bonneted bat (LPN = 2) 3 .......................................................................................................................................... Proposed listing. 

3 Southern FL plants (Florida semaphore cactus (Consolea corallicola) (LPN = 2), shellmound applecactus 

(Harrisia (= Cereus) aboriginum (= gracilis)) (LPN = 2), Cape Sable thoroughwort (Chromolaena frustrata) (LPN 

= 2)) 5.

Proposed listing. 

21 Big Island (HI) species 5 (includes 8 candidate species—5 plants & 3 animals; 4 with LPN = 2, 1 with LPN = 3, 

1 with LPN = 4, 2 with LPN = 8).

Proposed listing. 

12 Puget Sound prairie species (9 subspecies of pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama ssp.) (LPN = 3), streaked 

horned lark (LPN = 3), Taylor’s checkerspot (LPN = 3), Mardon skipper (LPN = 8)) 3.

Proposed listing. 

2 TN River mussels (fluted kidneyshell (LPN = 2), slabside pearlymussel (LPN = 2) 5 ................................................ Proposed listing. 

Jemez Mountain salamander (LPN = 2) 5 ...................................................................................................................... Proposed listing. 

1Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in previous FYs. 

2Although 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. 3Partially funded with FY 2010 funds and FY 2011 funds. 

4Funded with FY 2010 funds. 

5Funded 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. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R9–ES–2010–0001; MO 92210–0–0010 

B6] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To List the Peary Caribou and 

Dolphin and Union Population of the 

Barren-Ground Caribou as Endangered 

or Threatened 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of petition finding and 

initiation of status review. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, announce a 90-day 

finding on a petition to list the Peary 

(Rangifer tarandus pearyi) and the 

Dolphin and Union population of the 

barren-ground (R. t. groenlandicus x 

pearyi) caribou as endangered or 

threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

Based on our review, we find that the 

petition presents substantial scientific 

and commercial information indicating 

that the petitioned action may be 

warranted. Therefore, with the 

publication of this notice, we are 

initiating a review of the status of these 

two subspecies to determine if listing 

these two subspecies is warranted. To 

ensure that this status review is 

comprehensive, we request scientific 

and commercial data and other 

information regarding these two 

subspecies. At the conclusion of this 

review, we will issue a 12-month 

finding on the petition, which will 

address whether the petitioned action is 

warranted, as provided in section 

4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. 

DATES: To allow us adequate time to 

conduct this review, we request that we 

receive information on or before June 6, 

2011. After this date, you must submit 

information directly to the office listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section below. Please note that 

we may not be able to address or 

incorporate information that we receive 

after the above requested date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit 

information by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Search for docket 

FWS–R9–ES–2010–0001 and then 

follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R9– 

ES–2010–0001; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

MS 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will post all information received 

on http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Information Requested section 

below for more details). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of 

Foreign Species, Endangered Species 

Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420, 

Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703– 

358–2171; facsimile 703–358–1735. If 

you use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Information Requested 

When we make a finding that a 

petition presents substantial 

information indicating that listing a 

species or subspecies may be warranted, 

we are required to promptly review the 

status of the species (conduct a status 

review). For the status review to be 

complete and based on the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we request information on 

these two subspecies from governmental 

agencies (including Canadian national 

and provincial governments), local 

indigenous people of Canada (who also 

may be acknowledged as Native 

American or Aboriginal tribes), the 

scientific community, industry, and any 

other interested parties. We seek 

information on: 

(1) Each subspecies’ biology, range, 

and population trends, including: 

(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, 

breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range 

including distribution patterns, 

particularly regarding their seasonal 

migrations; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected 

population trends; 

(e) Potential threats to each 

subspecies such as mining, resource 

extraction, or other threats not 

identified; and 

(f) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for each subspecies or their 

habitat. 

(2) The factors that are the basis for 

making a listing determination for a 

species or subspecies under section 4(a) 

of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

which are: 

(a) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of their habitat or range; 

(b) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes, particularly data on hunting; 

(c) Disease or predation; 

(d) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(e) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting their continued existence. 

(3) The potential effects of climate 

change on each subspecies and its 

habitat. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as full 

references) to allow us to verify any 

scientific or commercial information 

you include. Submissions merely stating 

support for or opposition to the action 

under consideration without providing 

supporting information, although noted, 

will not be considered in making a 

determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the 

Act directs that determinations as to 

whether any species is an endangered or 

threatened species must be made ‘‘solely 

on the basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ 

You may submit your information 

concerning this status review by one of 

the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. If you submit information via 

http://www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the Web site. If you submit a 

hardcopy that includes personal 

identifying information, you may 

request at the top of your document that 

we withhold this personal identifying 

information from public review. 

However, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. We will post all 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS