Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 233 / Thursday, December 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 78029 

pressure toward this end because 

applicants know that only the best 

application in an MX group will win. 

9. The Commission also rejects 

Discount Legal’s argument that ‘‘the 

idea than an applicant must be 

dismissed because it is comparatively 

inferior to an unqualified applicant 

being dismissed’’ violates the Supreme 

Court’s holding in Ashbacker Radio 

Corp. v. FCC. The Commission 

previously considered and rejected this 

argument in a prior decision affirming 

the one-grant policy and explained that 

Ashbacker ‘‘[does not] require the 

Commission to engage in secondary 

analyses of inferior applications simply 

because they do not conflict with the 

tentative selectee.’’ 

10. Administrative Burdens. The 

Commission rejects Discount Legal’s 

contention that the concern about 

administrative burdens ‘‘does not hold 

up.’’ Discount Legal does not consider 

the extensive work required following 

the issuance of tentative selectee orders. 

The Commission explains that a 

tentative selection is not final until the 

entire administrative process of 

resolving petitions to deny, and any 

subsequent pleadings, is complete. 

Commission review of any petitions and 

associated point audits is a weighty and 

oftentimes lengthy process, requiring 

extensive analysis to determine the 

status of every tentative selectee’s 

application and the merits of every 

petition to deny. If a petition to deny is 

granted, a new tentative selectee must 

be chosen, and petitions to deny must 

again be entertained. 

11. The one-grant policy incentivizes 

applicants to resolve mutual 

exclusivities through the more 

expeditious settlement process, thereby 

accelerating new NCE service to the 

public. The Commission rejects 

Discount Legal’s argument that it is 

irrational to allow multiple grants in an 

MX group in the settlement context but 

not engage in secondary analysis 

through the point system. This 

argument does not account for the 

fundamentally different nature of the 

two conflict-resolution methods and the 

time each process entails. 

12. The Commission also rejects the 

argument that secondary grants would 

better accomplish the section 152 and 

303(g) statutory objectives of efficient 

and effective radio use. The 

Commission explains that simply 

granting as many applications as 

possible in any given window will not 

result in greater long-term efficiency 

and effectiveness. Rather, the one-grant 

policy better serves the policy goals of 

sections 152 and 303(g) by incentivizing 

better applications as well as 

cooperative settlements that encourage 

more intensive and higher quality use of 

spectrum. 

13. Established One-Grant Policy. 

Finally, the Commission’s rejects 

Discount Legal’s argument that the onegrant policy was not endorsed by the 

Commission, but rather, originated with 

the Bureau staff. The Commission 

explains that Discount Legal’s 

characterization is directly at odds with 

the Commission’s explicit mandate in 

the 2001 NCE Comparative MO&O, the 

subsequent Commission decisions 

stating that the Bureau correctly applied 

the NCE Comparative MO&O, and the 

Commission’s recent reaffirmation of 

the one-grant policy in the 2019 Report 

and Order. These decisions reflect that 

it has been, and remains, the resolve of 

the Commission—not the staff—that the 

Bureau process applications based on a 

‘‘one-grant’’ policy. 

Ordering Clauses 

14. It is ordered that the Petition for 

Reconsideration filed on March 12, 

2020, by Discount Legal is dismissed, 

and alternatively and independently, is 

denied. 

15. It is further ordered that should no 

further petitions for reconsideration or 

petitions for judicial review be timely 

filed, MB Docket No. 19–3 shall be 

terminated, and its docket closed. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2020–23306 Filed 12–2–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 

176, 178 and 180 

[Docket No. PHMSA–2017–0108 (HM–215O)] 

RIN 2137–AF32 

Hazardous Materials: Harmonization 

With International Standards 

Correction 

In rule document 2020–06205, 

beginning on page 27810, in the issue of 

Monday, May 11, 2020, make the 

following correction: 

■ On page 27852, in the second column, 

amendatory instruction 2d is corrected 

to read as follows: 

§ 171.7 [Corrected] 

d. Add paragraphs (w)(53), (62), (66), 

(69), (71), (72), and (75) through (77); 

[FR Doc. C1–2020–06205 Filed 12–2–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1301–00–D 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Eleven Species Not 

Warranted for Listing as Endangered 

or Threatened Species 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notification of findings. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce 

findings that eleven species are not 

warranted for listing as endangered or 

threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). After a thorough review 

of the best available scientific and 

commercial information, we find that it 

is not warranted at this time to list the 

Doll’s daisy, Puget Oregonian, Rocky 

Mountain monkeyflower, southern 

white-tailed ptarmigan, tidewater 

amphipod, tufted puffin, Hamlin Valley 

pyrg, longitudinal gland pyrg, subglobose snake pyrg, the Johnson Springs 

Wetland Complex population of relict 

dace, or Clear Lake hitch. However, we 

ask the public to submit to us at any 

time any new information relevant to 

the status of any of the species 

mentioned above or their habitats. 

DATES: The findings in this document 

were made on December 3, 2020. 

ADDRESSES: Detailed descriptions of the 

bases for these findings are available on 

the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov under the 

following docket numbers: 

Species Docket No. 

Doll’s daisy ............................................................................................... FWS–R5–ES–2020–0066.

Puget Oregonian ...................................................................................... FWS–R1–ES–2020–0067. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
78030 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 233 / Thursday, December 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

Species Docket No. 

Rocky Mountain monkeyflower ................................................................ FWS–R6–ES–2012–0052. 

Southern white-tailed ptarmigan ............................................................... FWS–R6–ES–2012–0023. 

Tidewater amphipod ................................................................................. FWS–R5–ES–2020–0068. 

Tufted puffin .............................................................................................. FWS–R7–ES–2020–0072.

Hamlin Valley pyrg ................................................................................... FWS–R6–ES–2020–0069. 

Longitudinal gland pyrg ............................................................................ FWS–R6–ES–2020–0070. 

Sub-globose snake pyrg ........................................................................... FWS–R6–ES–2020–0071. 

Relict dace ................................................................................................ FWS–R8–ES–2020–0113.

Clear Lake hitch ....................................................................................... FWS–R8–ES–2020–0112. 

Supporting information used to 

prepare this finding is available by 

contacting the appropriate person as 

specified under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any 

new information, materials, comments, 

or questions concerning this finding to 

the appropriate person, as specified 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Species Contact information 

Doll’s daisy ............................................................................................... Eric Schrading, Field Supervisor, New Jersey Field Office, (609) 382– 

5272. 

Puget Oregonian ...................................................................................... Brad Thompson, State Supervisor, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, (360) 753–9440. 

Rocky Mountain monkeyflower ................................................................ Ann Timberman, Acting Field Supervisor, Colorado Ecological Services 

Field Office, (970) 628–7181. 

Southern white-tailed ptarmigan ............................................................... Ann Timberman, Acting Field Supervisor, Colorado Ecological Services 

Field Office, (970) 628–7181. 

Tidewater amphipod ................................................................................. Julie A. Slacum, Division Chief, Strategic Resource Conservation, 

Chesapeake Bay Field Office, (410) 573–4595. 

Tufted puffin .............................................................................................. Stewart Cogswell, Field Supervisor, Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office, (907) 271–2787. 

Hamlin Valley pyrg, longitudinal gland pyrg, and sub-globose snake 

pyrg.

Laura Romin, Deputy Field Supervisor, Utah Ecological Services Field 

Office, (801) 975–3330, ext. 142. 

Relict dace ................................................................................................ Mark Jackson, Field Supervisor, Reno Fish and Wildlife Office, (775) 

861–6300. 

Clear Lake hitch ....................................................................................... Kim Turner, Acting Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, (916) 414–6700. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), please call the 

Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we are required to 

make a finding whether or not a 

petitioned action is warranted within 12 

months after receiving any petition for 

which we have determined contains 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted 

(‘‘12-month finding’’). We must make a 

finding that the petitioned action is: (1) 

Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) 

warranted but precluded. We must 

publish a notice of these 12-month 

findings in the Federal Register. 

Summary of Information Pertaining to 

the Five Factors 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and the implementing regulations at 

part 424 of title 50 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) 

set forth procedures for adding species 

to, removing species from, or 

reclassifying species on the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants (Lists). The Act defines 

‘‘species’’ as any subspecies of fish or 

wildlife or plants, and any distinct 

population segment of any species of 

vertebrate fish or wildlife which 

interbreeds when mature. The Act 

defines ‘‘endangered species’’ as any 

species that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)), and 

‘‘threatened species’’ as any species that 

is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Under 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may 

be determined to be an endangered 

species or a threatened species because 

of any of the following five factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. 

We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in 

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. However, the mere 

identification of any threat(s) does not 

necessarily mean that the species meets 

the statutory definition of an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ In determining whether a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 233 / Thursday, December 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 78031 

species meets either definition, we must 

evaluate all identified threats by 

considering the expected response by 

the species, and the effects of the 

threats—in light of those actions and 

conditions that will ameliorate the 

threats—on an individual, population, 

and species level. We evaluate each 

threat and its expected effects on the 

species, then analyze the cumulative 

effect of all of the threats on the species 

as a whole. We also consider the 

cumulative effect of the threats in light 

of those actions and conditions that will 

have positive effects on the species, 

such as any existing regulatory 

mechanisms or conservation efforts. The 

Secretary determines whether the 

species meets the definition of an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species’’ only after conducting this 

cumulative analysis and describing the 

expected effect on the species now and 

in the foreseeable future. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

future on a case-by-case basis. The term 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far 

into the future as the Service can 

reasonably determine that both the 

future threats and the species’ responses 

to those threats are likely. In other 

words, the foreseeable future is the 

period of time in which we can make 

reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not 

mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to 

provide a reasonable degree of 

confidence in the prediction. Thus, a 

prediction is reliable if it is reasonable 

to depend on it when making decisions. 

It is not always possible or necessary 

to define foreseeable future as a 

particular number of years. Analysis of 

the foreseeable future uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and should consider the timeframes 

applicable to the relevant threats and to 

the species’ likely responses to those 

threats in view of its life-history 

characteristics. Data that are typically 

relevant to assessing the species’ 

biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan, 

reproductive rates or productivity, 

certain behaviors, and other 

demographic factors. 

In conducting our evaluation of the 

five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of 

the Act to determine whether the Doll’s 

daisy (Boltonia montana), Puget 

Oregonian (Cryptomastix devia), Rocky 

Mountain monkeyflower (Mimulus 

gemmiparus), southern white-tailed 

ptarmigan (Lagopus leucura altipetens), 

tidewater amphipod (Stygobromus 

indentatus), tufted puffin (Fratercula 

cirrhata), Hamlin Valley pyrg 

(Pyrgulopsis hamlinensis), longitudinal 

gland pyrg (Pyrgulopsis anguina), subglobose snake pyrg (Pyrgulopsis 

saxatilis), and Clear Lake hitch (Lavinia 

exilicauda chi) meet the definition of 

‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened 

species,’’ we considered and thoroughly 

evaluated the best scientific and 

commercial information available 

regarding the past, present, and future 

stressors and threats. We reviewed the 

petitions, information available in our 

files, and other available published and 

unpublished information. Our 

evaluation may include information 

from recognized experts; Federal, State, 

and tribal governments; academic 

institutions; foreign governments; 

private entities; and other members of 

the public. 

The species assessment forms for the 

Doll’s daisy, Puget Oregonian, Rocky 

Mountain monkeyflower, southern 

white-tailed ptarmigan, tidewater 

amphipod, tufted puffin, Hamlin Valley 

pyrg, longitudinal gland pyrg, subglobose snake pyrg, the Johnson Springs 

Wetland Complex population of relict 

dace, and Clear Lake hitch contain more 

detailed biological information, a 

thorough analysis of the listing factors, 

and an explanation of why we 

determined that these species do not 

meet the definition of an endangered 

species or a threatened species. This 

supporting information can be found on 

the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov under the 

appropriate docket number (see 

ADDRESSES, above). The following are 

informational summaries for the 

findings in this document. 

Doll’s Daisy 

Previous Federal Actions 

On April 20, 2010, we received a 

petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity (CBD), Alabama Rivers 

Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood 

Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, 

Tennessee Forests Council, and West 

Virginia Highlands to list 404 aquatic, 

riparian, and wetland species, including 

Boltonia montana (referred to by the 

common names ‘‘Doll’s-daisy’’ and 

‘‘doll’s daisy’’ in the petition; referred to 

hereafter as Doll’s daisy), as endangered 

or threatened species under the Act. On 

September 27, 2011, we published in 

the Federal Register (76 FR 59836) a 90- 

day finding in which we announced 

that the petition contained substantial 

information indicating listing may be 

warranted for the species. This 

document constitutes our 12-month 

finding on the April 20, 2010, petition 

to list Doll’s daisy under the Act. 

Summary of Finding 

Doll’s daisy is a perennial plant in the 

Asteraceae family that is known from 

Augusta County, Virginia; Sussex and 

Warren Counties, New Jersey; and 

Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, the 

latter regarded as a historical 

occurrence. The species occurs in 

certain isolated sinkhole ponds that 

have widely fluctuating water levels, 

and its life history is adapted to these 

variable habitat conditions. The species 

currently occurs in 21 population sites 

in New Jersey (5 are on land owned or 

managed by the State, 6 are on private 

property owned or managed by a 

conservation organization, and the 

remaining 10 populations are privately 

owned) and 22 population sites in 

Virginia (7 are on U.S. Forest Service 

land, and the remaining 15 are on 

private property). 

Soil, water, sunlight, pollinator 

services, and a suitable annual 

temperature regime are interrelated 

resource needs required by Dolly’s daisy 

individuals and populations. At the 

metapopulation scale, the species likely 

requires some degree of habitat 

connectivity to maintain viability; 

however, there is significant uncertainty 

regarding the degree of connectivity that 

may be necessary between population 

sites. We assume there is no natural 

connectivity between the two extant 

metapopulations in New Jersey and 

Virginia. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the Doll’s daisy, 

and we evaluated all relevant factors 

under the five listing factors, including 

any regulatory mechanisms and 

conservation measures addressing these 

stressors. The primary stressors affecting 

the Doll’s daisy’s biological status 

include habitat modification (as a result 

of development, agriculture, off-road 

vehicle use, altered surface hydrology, 

and groundwater withdrawals) and 

climate change. There are conservation 

measures in place that benefit the 

species. Our species status assessment 

report for the Doll’s daisy evaluates 

three plausible future scenarios for the 

species. In our future condition 

analysis, scenarios 1 and 3 predict 

between 3 and 11 populations would 

have lower resiliencies than the current 

condition, with the potential under one 

scenario that changes may result in the 

extirpation of several low resiliency 

populations, perhaps causing a loss of 

redundancy. Under scenario 2, we 

predict feasible conservation efforts 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
78032 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 233 / Thursday, December 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

would improve the condition of 22 

populations. Under all scenarios, the 

species would maintain multiple 

moderate or high resiliency populations 

in the New Jersey and Virginia 

metapopulations; therefore, the species’ 

representation is not predicted to 

change from the current condition 

(although we note that the historical 

extirpation of the Pennsylvania 

metapopulation may have reduced the 

species’ representation). 

Despite impacts from the primary 

stressors, Doll’s daisy has maintained 

resilient populations throughout its 

range. Although we predict some 

continued impacts from these stressors 

in the future, we anticipate the species 

will continue to maintain resilient 

populations throughout the foreseeable 

future. Therefore, we find that listing 

the Doll’s daisy as an endangered 

species or threatened species under the 

Act is not warranted. A detailed 

discussion of the basis for this finding 

can be found in the Doll’s daisy species 

assessment and other supporting 

documents (see ADDRESSES, above). 

Puget Oregonian 

Previous Federal Actions 

On March 17, 2008, we received a 

petition (dated March 13, 2008) from 

CBD, Conservation Northwest, the 

Environmental Protection Information 

Center, the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands 

Center, and Oregon Wild to list 32 

species and subspecies of snails and 

slugs (mollusks), including Puget 

Oregonian (Cryptomastix devia), in the 

Pacific Northwest as endangered or 

threatened species under the Act. On 

October 5, 2011, we published in the 

Federal Register (76 FR 61826) a 90-day 

finding that the petition presented 

substantial information indicating that 

listing the Puget Oregonian under the 

Act may be warranted. This document 

constitutes our 12-month finding on the 

March 13, 2008, petition to list the 

Puget Oregonian under the Act. 

Summary of Finding 

The Puget Oregonian is a snail that 

inhabits moist, conifer-forest habitats 

that include some level of deciduous 

tree community composition. The 

species is most commonly located in 

stands with bigleaf maple (Acer 

macrophyllum) that occur along stream 

and river terraces or other habitats with 

a flat or gentle slope. Within that 

landscape, the species’ habitat niche is 

near or under bigleaf maple crowns and 

in, or under, hardwood logs and other 

woody material, leaf litter, moist talus, 

and the lowest fronds of western 

swordfern (Polystichum munitum). The 

Puget Oregonian is found in the Cascade 

Range and Puget Trough in Washington, 

and south into the foothills of the Coast 

Range and Willamette Valley, in 

Oregon; the species is recognized as 

extirpated from British Columbia, 

Canada. 

Most occurrence records for this 

species come from the Cispus River in 

Washington on the Gifford Pinchot 

National Forest, resulting from surveys 

conducted under the Northwest Forest 

Plan in areas where U.S. Forest Service 

projects were being considered. As a 

result, much of the potential suitable 

habitat for the Puget Oregonian remains 

unsurveyed. 

The primary stressors affecting the 

Puget Oregonian include the effects of 

past, current, and future habitat loss, 

modification, and fragmentation from 

forest management, land conversion to 

agriculture and development, big leaf 

maple dieback disease, and wildfire. 

However, the species has been found in 

areas that had been previously impacted 

by some of these stressors (forest 

practices, bigleaf maple dieback disease 

and wildfire). The best available data 

provide no information on whether 

there is a declining or increasing 

population trend and limited 

information on whether the range of the 

species has contracted or expanded in 

the last century. Ten of the 15 habitat 

units assessed appear to have high 

resilience, containing multiple 

contemporary validated records of this 

species as well as a high percentage of 

suitable habitat within the unit and in 

the immediate and surrounding area. 

Although the species does not appear to 

be particularly abundant across its 

range, and much uncertainty regarding 

presence of the species in suitable but 

unsurveyed portions of the range, the 

snail’s distribution across a large area 

(redundancy), with ten highly resilient 

populations in four different sub-basins 

(representation), indicates the species is 

likely to withstand catastrophic events 

in one or more sub-basin. 

The resources that the Puget 

Oregonian needs are likely to diminish 

in quantity and quality over time with 

future increases in environmental 

stressors including the effects of climate 

change, human population growth in 

the Pacific Northwest, forest 

management, and bigleaf maple dieback 

disease. If suitable habitat diminishes as 

expected, we would anticipate a 

corresponding decline in the resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation of the 

species. However, the Puget Oregonian’s 

current distribution in at least 15 sites 

across at least four different sub-basins 

will support its ability to maintain 

resiliency into the mid-21st century. 

Furthermore, the species’ ability to take 

refuge in small areas (microhabitat) 

could add to the future resiliency of 

populations. 

We know that features of the species’ 

habitat may change in the future, and 

we can project the scope and magnitude 

of some of those environmental changes. 

However, our incomplete understanding 

of how the species may respond to 

changes in its environment over time 

creates a wide range of possibilities for 

the future condition of the 15 analytic 

units we assessed. The best available 

information does not indicate that the 

future magnitude and scope of potential 

environmental stressors would be at a 

level that would cause the species to be 

in danger of extinction in the 

foreseeable future. 

Therefore, we find that listing the 

Puget Oregonian as an endangered 

species or threatened species under the 

Act is not warranted. A detailed 

discussion of the basis for this finding 

can be found in the Puget Oregonian 

species status assessment and other 

supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, 

above). 

Rocky Mountain Monkeyflower 

Previous Federal Actions 

On October 4, 2011, we received a 

petition from WildEarth Guardians 

requesting, in part, that we list the 

Rocky Mountain monkeyflower as an 

endangered or threatened species under 

the Act. On August 29, 2012, we 

published in the Federal Register (77 

FR 52293) a 90-day finding that the 

petition presented substantial 

information indicating that listing the 

Rocky Mountain monkeyflower under 

the Act may be warranted. This 

document constitutes our 12-month 

finding on the September 30, 2011, 

petition to list the Rocky Mountain 

monkeyflower under the Act. 

Summary of Finding 

The Rocky Mountain monkeyflower, 

also known as the budding 

monkeyflower, is a small, narrow 

endemic plant found in north-central 

Colorado. Uniquely, this plant exhibits 

an asexual reproduction strategy not 

seen within the Mimulus genus or in 

any other Holarctic species; the plant 

produces propagules which contain 

‘‘bulbils,’’ which have all of the 

components needed to develop into a 

new plant, including a shoot axis and 

rudimentary leaves and roots. The 

Rocky Mountain monkeyflower 

occupies approximately 60 acres (24.28 

hectares) on State or Federal lands 

managed by the U.S. Forest Service, the 

National Park Service, and Colorado 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 233 / Thursday, December 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 78033 

Parks and Wildlife in Boulder, Clear 

Creek, Grand, Jefferson, and Larimer 

Counties in Colorado. Currently, we 

know of 24 occurrences of the Rocky 

Mountain monkeyflower that constitute 

19 populations; surveyors have 

observed over 14 million ramets (ramets 

are individuals that result from asexual 

reproduction and thus may be 

genetically identical). 

The Rocky Mountain monkeyflower 

inhabits montane to subalpine habitats 

at elevations of 2,400 to 3,400 meters 

(7,874 to 11,154 feet) and is found under 

overhangs of south-facing cliffs or 

boulders. Little information exists about 

the ecological factors that affect growth 

and establishment of the Rocky 

Mountain monkeyflower in the wild. 

The survival of propagules is strongly 

influenced by moisture, temperature, 

and substrate type. A number of 

patterns are apparent in the few 

available studies on habitat parameters; 

all of the previous studies and species 

descriptions suggest that periods of very 

moist or saturated soil are important, 

but it appears that too much water can 

be problematic for this species. The 

optimal hydrological conditions are 

sites that are periodically saturated or, 

at most, consistently moist with no long 

periods of standing water. Similarly, 

successful sites have very shallow soil, 

typically fewer than two centimeters 

deep. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the Rocky 

Mountain monkeyflower, and we 

evaluated all relevant stressors under 

the five listing factors, including any 

regulatory mechanisms and 

conservation measures addressing these 

stressors. We identified climate change 

as the primary stressor affecting the 

Rocky Mountain monkeyflower’s 

biological status. Currently, the Rocky 

Mountain monkeyflower has multiple, 

resilient populations distributed across 

its range, encompassing various 

ecological conditions and some genetic 

variation. While the Rocky Mountain 

monkeyflower is a narrow endemic 

plant with low population sizes and a 

limited range, this limitation does not 

seem to be currently compromising the 

species’ resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation, given the relatively large 

numbers of ramets in multiple 

populations, the low risk of inbreeding 

depression due to the plant’s asexual 

reproduction, good or moderate 

hydrological conditions in most 

populations, and relatively high levels 

of genetic diversity for an asexual 

species. The species is only known to 

occur on Federal and State public lands, 

which minimizes many threats such 

that there are no stressors currently 

providing species-level impacts. In the 

future, while we may lose some small 

Rocky Mountain monkeyflower 

populations, we project that each 

analysis unit will likely remain 

occupied. Moreover, in all projected 

future scenarios, the three populations 

containing over 90 percent of 

monkeyflower ramets will be in good or 

moderate condition. Furthermore, the 

plant’s asexual reproduction strategy 

confers, and likely would continue to 

confer, additional resiliency because 

this less energy-intensive method of 

reproduction allows the species to 

reproduce in relatively harsh 

conditions. Thus, based on our analysis, 

we anticipate that the Rocky Mountain 

monkeyflower will continue to have 

multiple, resilient populations 

distributed across its narrow range, 

providing for limited but sufficient 

redundancy and representation 

necessary to withstand catastrophic 

events and adapt to environmental 

change into the future. 

Therefore, we find that listing the 

Rocky Mountain monkeyflower as an 

endangered species or threatened 

species under the Act is not warranted. 

A detailed discussion of the basis for 

this finding can be found in the Rocky 

Mountain monkeyflower species 

assessment and other supporting 

documents (see ADDRESSES, above). 

Southern White-Tailed Ptarmigan 

Previous Federal Actions 

On August 24, 2010, we received a 

petition from CBD requesting that we 

list either the U.S. population or the 

Rocky Mountain population of the 

white-tailed ptarmigan as threatened or 

endangered distinct population 

segments (DPSs) and that we designate 

critical habitat. Following our 

correspondence with the petitioner 

regarding the accepted taxonomy of the 

white-tailed ptarmigan and our DPS 

policy, the petitioner revised the 

petition on September 1, 2011. The 

revised petition requested that we list 

the southern white-tailed ptarmigan (L. 

l. altipetens) and the Mt. Rainier whitetailed ptarmigan (L. l. rainierensis) as 

threatened subspecies. On June 5, 2012, 

we published in the Federal Register 

(77 FR 33143) a 90-day finding that the 

petition presented substantial 

information that listing may be 

warranted for the southern white-tailed 

ptarmigan and the Mt. Rainier whitetailed ptarmigan. This document 

constitutes the 12-month finding on the 

September 1, 2011, petition to list the 

southern white-tailed ptarmigan under 

the Act. We will address our finding for 

the Mt. Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan 

in a future determination. 

Summary of Finding 

The southern white-tailed ptarmigan 

is a small bird that lives in highelevation, alpine ecosystems in 

Colorado, northern New Mexico, and 

historically in the Snowy Range of 

southern Wyoming. Alpine ecosystems 

are characterized by high winds, cold 

temperatures, short growing seasons, 

low atmospheric oxygen concentrations, 

and intense solar radiation. The 

southern white-tailed ptarmigan is one 

of five subspecies of white-tailed 

ptarmigan in the Phasianidae family, 

subfamily Tetraoninae, which includes 

the grouse, or ground-feeding game 

birds. So named for its perpetually 

white tail feathers, the southern whitetailed ptarmigan changes its plumage 

seasonally to match the coloration and 

patterns of its alpine habitats, from 

white in winter to brown in the 

summer, effectively camouflaging the 

birds against snow and alpine rocks and 

vegetation. In addition to cryptic 

coloration, the southern white-tailed 

ptarmigan displays other adaptations to 

the temperature, precipitation, wind, 

and snow cover extremes of its alpine 

habitats. For example, heavily feathered 

feet support the southern white-tailed 

ptarmigan like snowshoes as they walk 

across the snow, and the subspecies 

feeds almost exclusively on willow buds 

during the winter when other food 

sources are scarce. 

Nearly all suitable habitat for the 

southern-white tailed ptarmigan occurs 

on lands managed by Federal land 

management agencies, with over 85 

percent managed by the U.S. Forest 

Service, over 5 percent managed by the 

National Park Service, and 4.5 percent 

managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management. Approximately 6 percent 

of suitable habitat is located on 

privately owned land. The distribution 

of southern white-tailed ptarmigan is 

largely unchanged from historical levels 

in Colorado and New Mexico, but a lack 

of recent observations indicates that the 

subspecies is presumed extirpated from 

the Snowy Range in southern Wyoming. 

We determined that individual 

southern white-tailed ptarmigan have 

specific habitat needs to breed, feed, 

and shelter, including suitable winter 

snow conditions, available late-lying 

snowfields, summer precipitation and 

monsoonal moisture, brood-rearing 

habitat, and willows. We also 

determined that populations of southern 

white-tailed ptarmigan need external 

recruitment of immigrants, breeding 

dispersal, adult female survival, and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
78034 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 233 / Thursday, December 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

population growth in order to be 

resilient. Demographic connectivity 

between populations is critical for 

resiliency, as it allows for genetic 

exchange, dispersal, and external 

recruitment. The subspecies needs a 

sufficient number and distribution of 

resilient populations to withstand the 

annual variation in its environment, 

catastrophes, and novel biological and 

physical changes in its environment. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the southern whitetailed ptarmigan, and we evaluated all 

relevant factors under the five listing 

factors, including any regulatory 

mechanisms and conservation measures 

addressing these stressors. Potential 

stressors to the southern white-tailed 

ptarmigan include predation, mining 

and related poisoning due to toxic 

concentrations of trace metals, hunting, 

recreation, livestock and native ungulate 

grazing, and the effects of global climate 

change. Through our analysis, we found 

that only climate change may affect 

southern white-tailed ptarmigan 

populations due to increases in 

minimum and maximum temperatures; 

changes in snow quantity, quality, 

extent, and duration; shifts in plant 

phenology; advancement of treeline, 

and expansion of willow into alpine 

areas; and changes in the amount and 

timing of seasonal precipitation. 

Although the other stressors may affect 

individuals or local areas, they do not 

affect resiliency, redundancy, or 

representation, alone or cumulatively, 

currently or into the future for the 

southern white-tailed ptarmigan. 

Currently, 14 out of 19 analytical 

units (a scale of analysis similar to 

populations) have high resiliency, 3 

have medium resiliency, 1 in New 

Mexico has very low resiliency, and the 

Snowy Range analytical unit in 

Wyoming is presumed extirpated. Other 

than local declines in New Mexico and 

the presumed extirpation in the Snowy 

Range, the southern white-tailed 

ptarmigan currently occupies nearly all 

of its historical range, and the 

subspecies has sufficient resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation to 

withstand stochastic and catastrophic 

events and to adapt to environmental 

changes. Therefore, given the current 

levels of resiliency distributed across 

Colorado, the lack of significant 

stressors, and the life-history 

characteristics of the subspecies that 

make it uniquely adapted to the 

environmental extremes of its alpine 

habitats, we conclude that the current 

risk of extinction is low. In the future, 

we project reductions in resiliency, due 

to changes in climate, with a minor 

reduction in redundancy and 

representation if the analytical unit in 

New Mexico declines from very low 

resiliency to an extirpated condition. 

However, at least 17 resilient analytical 

units are projected to remain distributed 

across Colorado in the future, so the 

subspecies maintains enough resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation to 

withstand stochastic and catastrophic 

events and to adapt to changing 

conditions. Therefore, we consider the 

future risk of extinction to also be low. 

We find that listing the southern 

white-tailed ptarmigan as an 

endangered subspecies or a threatened 

subspecies under the Act is not 

warranted. A detailed discussion of the 

basis for this finding can be found in the 

southern white-tailed ptarmigan species 

assessment and other supporting 

documents (see ADDRESSES, above). 

Tidewater Amphipod 

Previous Federal Actions 

We identified the tidewater amphipod 

as a Category 2 candidate species for 

listing in a May 22, 1984, notice of 

review (49 FR 21664). Category 2 

candidate species were taxa for which 

the Service had information indicating 

that proposing to list the species as 

endangered or threatened was possibly 

appropriate, but for which conclusive 

data on biological vulnerability and 

threats were not at that time available to 

support proposed rules. The tidewater 

amphipod remained designated as a 

Category 2 candidate species in 

subsequent candidate notices of review 

(54 FR 554, January 6, 1989; 56 FR 

58804, November 21, 1991; 59 FR 

58982, November 15, 1994). In the 

February 28, 1996, notice (61 FR 7596), 

we discontinued the designation of 

Category 2 species as candidates, which 

removed the tidewater amphipod from 

our candidate list. 

On April 20, 2010, we received a 

petition from CBD, Alabama Rivers 

Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood 

Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, 

Tennessee Forests Council, and West 

Virginia Highlands to list 404 aquatic, 

riparian, and wetland species, including 

the tidewater amphipod, as endangered 

or threatened species under the Act. On 

September 27, 2011, we published in 

the Federal Register (76 FR 59836) a 90- 

day finding in which we announced 

that the petition contained substantial 

information indicating listing may be 

warranted for the species. This 

document constitutes our 12-month 

finding on the April 20, 2010, petition 

to list the tidewater amphipod under the 

Act. 

Summary of Finding 

The tidewater amphipod is a small, 

subterranean, shallow groundwater 

crustacean. Compared to similar 

amphipods, the tidewater amphipod is 

relatively large, with males reaching 

lengths of 9.7 millimeters (mm) (0.38 

inches (in)) and females 8.2 mm (0.32 

in). The species’ entire known current 

distribution occurs within five counties 

in Maryland and seven counties in 

Virginia spanning a distance of 180 

miles (289 kilometers) of the Coastal 

Plain physiographic region. 

Contemporary collections of tidewater 

amphipods have typically been made 

during the winter and spring months 

when individuals can be found in 

seepage springs, tile drains, and shallow 

wells. 

Specific diet, water quality and 

quantity tolerances, and behavioral and 

reproductive traits of tidewater 

amphipod are unknown. However, 

based on the general principles of 

conservation biology, information about 

other groundwater amphipod species, 

and local information from the areas 

where tidewater amphipods have been 

observed, we infer that individuals need 

shallow water habitats with sufficient 

space to breed and shelter; sufficient 

water quality for breeding and 

sheltering; forest cover, which provides 

a buffer for water quality and quantity, 

and provides food; and a clay or 

confining layer or pore space to help 

support feeding and sheltering when 

water quantities are low. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the tidewater 

amphipod, and we evaluated all 

relevant factors under the five listing 

factors, including any regulatory 

mechanisms and conservation measures 

addressing these stressors. The primary 

stressors affecting the tidewater 

amphipod’s biological status include 

reduced groundwater quality and 

quantity, and we identified 

development (i.e., impervious surfaces) 

as a primary source of changes to both. 

In response to degraded water quality, 

we conclude there could be decreased 

fitness and declines in the tidewater 

amphipod’s resiliency caused by 

changes in biodiversity within its 

habitats. In response to the greater threat 

of reduced water quantity, there is 

evidence that the tidewater amphipod 

can burrow deeper underground for 

periods of time and reemerge when 

sufficient water levels return. While 

representation is assumed to have 

decreased when compared to historical 

conditions, it appears the species has 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 233 / Thursday, December 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 78035 

sustained multiple populations across 

much of its historical range and through 

multiple stochastic events such as 

drought. Considering the future 

scenarios, the majority of populations 

do not appear to be at high risk of 

development, and the impact to the 

species caused by impervious surfaces 

is not projected to increase 

substantially. Thus, the primary threats 

appear to have low imminence and 

magnitude such that they are not 

providing species-level impacts to the 

tidewater amphipod. We evaluated 

numerous other factors (e.g., climate 

change, effects of small population size, 

collection, predation, disease, 

recreation, forest management, and 

other conservation efforts) and 

determined that they had little to no 

measurable impact on the species. The 

species status assessment report 

describes many uncertainties in the 

species’ occurrence, populations, and 

response to threats, but, considering the 

available data, the risk of extinction is 

low. 

Therefore, we find that listing the 

tidewater amphipod as an endangered 

species or threatened species under the 

Act is not warranted. A detailed 

discussion of the basis for this finding 

can be found in the tidewater amphipod 

species assessment and other supporting 

documents (see ADDRESSES, above). 

Tufted Puffin 

Previous Federal Actions 

On February 14, 2014, we received a 

petition from the Natural Resources 

Defense Council (NRDC) to list the 

contiguous U.S. DPS of tufted puffin as 

an endangered or threatened species 

under the Act. Alternatively, the NRDC 

stated that we should list the tufted 

puffin species (i.e., the entire 

population(s) across its known range) 

and apply this alternative if we found 

the contiguous U.S. population of the 

species did not meet our DPS policy. On 

September 18, 2015, we published in 

the Federal Register (80 FR 56423) a 90- 

day finding in which we announced 

that the petition contained substantial 

information indicating listing may be 

warranted for the contiguous U.S. DPS 

of tufted puffin in the States of 

Washington, Oregon, and California. 

The 90-day finding neglected to make a 

determination specific to the NRDC’s 

alternative listing request. This 

document constitutes our 12-month 

finding on the February 14, 2014, 

petition to list the tufted puffin 

(addressing both petitioned entities) 

under the Act. 

Summary of Finding 

The tufted puffin is a widely 

distributed pelagic seabird found in the 

North Pacific Ocean. The tufted puffin 

is a burrow-nester that commonly nests 

colonially on offshore islands. Tufted 

puffins nest along the coasts of 

California, Oregon, Washington, and 

Alaska in the United States, and in 

Canada (British Columbia), Russia, and 

Japan. The majority of tufted puffins (82 

percent) nest in North America, 

primarily Alaska; Russia has the second 

largest concentration of nesting tufted 

puffins (18 percent). Colony size is 

variable, ranging from just a few birds 

to large colonies of greater than 100,000 

tufted puffins. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the tufted puffin, 

and we evaluated all relevant factors 

under the five listing factors, including 

any regulatory mechanisms and 

conservation measures addressing these 

stressors. We determined that the most 

significant threats impacting the tufted 

puffin and its habitat are changing 

climate conditions, oil spills, fisheries 

bycatch, mammalian and avian 

predators, nonnative plants and 

animals, and human disturbance. The 

most significant of these threats to 

potentially impact the resource needs of 

tufted puffins are climate change and oil 

spills. Currently, the best available 

information for tufted puffins indicates 

adequate redundancy and 

representation across the species’ range, 

including robust populations across the 

majority of its range. The species 

continues to occur throughout its 

historical range. While the tufted 

puffin’s range will likely continue to 

contract in the south due to climate 

change, models predict the species will 

continue to remain widely distributed 

throughout most of its historical range. 

The tufted puffin is expected to 

maintain resilient colonies throughout a 

large proportion of its range, including 

likely continued representation across 

most of its range. 

Therefore, we find that listing the 

contiguous U.S. DPS of tufted puffin or 

the tufted puffin species as endangered 

or threatened is not warranted. A 

detailed discussion of the basis for this 

finding can be found in the tufted puffin 

species assessment and other supporting 

documents (see ADDRESSES, above). 

Hamlin Valley Pyrg, Longitudinal Gland 

Pyrg, Sub-Globose Snake Pyrg 

Previous Federal Actions 

On July 30, 2007, we received a 

petition (dated July 24, 2007) from 

Forest Guardians (now WildEarth 

Guardians) requesting that the Service: 

(1) Consider all full species in our 

Mountain Prairie Region ranked as G1 

or G1G2 by the organization 

NatureServe, except those that are 

currently listed, proposed for listing, or 

candidates for listing; and (2) list each 

species as either endangered or 

threatened. This petition included the 

Hamlin Valley pyrg, longitudinal gland 

pyrg, and sub-globose snake pyrg. On 

February 27, 2009, we received another 

petition dated February 17, 2009, from 

the CBD, Tierra Curry, Noah Greenwald, 

Dr. James Deacon, Don Duff, and the 

Freshwater Mollusk Conservation 

Society, requesting that we list 42 

species of Great Basin springsnails in 

Nevada, Utah, and California, including 

the Hamlin Valley pyrg, longitudinal 

gland pyrg, and sub-globose snake pyrg, 

as endangered or threatened, and 

designating critical habitat under the 

Act. On August 18, 2009, we published 

in the Federal Register (74 FR 41649) a 

90-day finding in which we announced 

that the petitions contained substantial 

information indicating listing these 

three species may be warranted. This 

document constitutes the 12-month 

finding on the July 30, 2007, and 

February 17, 2009, petitions to list the 

Hamlin Valley pyrg, longitudinal gland 

pyrg, and sub-globose snake pyrg under 

the Act. 

Summary of Finding 

The three springsnail species are in 

the genus Pyrgulopsis of the 

Hydrobiidae family. In general, the three 

species are morphologically similar 

with hardened shells and soft anatomy, 

and they are differentiated based on 

subtle morphological characteristics. 

The Hamlin Valley pyrg occurs only in 

the White Rock Cabin Springs province 

in Hamlin Valley, straddling the Utah 

and Nevada State line. The Utah portion 

of the spring province is all on private 

land, while the Nevada portion is 

entirely within the White Rock Range 

Wilderness Area managed by the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM). The 

longitudinal gland pyrg occurs on 

private land at three springs or spring 

provinces (Big Springs province, 

Stateline Springs province, and Clay 

Spring) in the Snake Valley area of 

White Pine County, Nevada, and 

Millard County, Utah. The sub-globose 

snake pyrg occurs only in Utah at Gandy 

Warm Springs in Snake Valley, 

contained entirely within the Gandy 

Mountain Caves Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern managed by the 

BLM. 

All three springsnails are very small 

in size, only a few millimeters in length 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
78036 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 233 / Thursday, December 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

and width, and have limited ability or 

tendency to move. These species are 

herbivores or detritivores that primarily 

graze on the periphyton (freshwater 

organisms attached or clinging to plants) 

of exposed surfaces of aquatic plants 

and substrates in the small springs they 

inhabit. We determined the following 

spring conditions are most critical in 

influencing the physical and biological 

needs of springsnails: Sufficient water 

quality, adequate substrate and 

vegetation, free-flowing water, and 

adequate spring discharge. When each 

of these physical and biological needs is 

present and functioning within a spring, 

stable populations of springsnails are 

expected. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the springsnails, 

and we evaluated all relevant factors 

under the five listing factors, including 

any regulatory mechanisms and 

conservation measures addressing these 

stressors. Historically and through the 

present, the three springsnail species 

and their habitats were impacted to 

varying degrees by predation and 

competition, vegetation and soil 

disturbance, water pollution, spring 

modification, and groundwater 

pumping. However, we determined the 

most important stressors likely to 

impact future conditions of the three 

species include groundwater pumping 

and withdrawals, altered precipitation 

and temperature, and, in the case of the 

sub-globose snake pyrg, nonnative fish 

competition. 

The Hamlin Valley pyrg occurs in one 

population with 10 of 11 occupied 

springbrooks in high overall resiliency 

condition and one springbrook in 

moderate condition; resiliency is high in 

all but one springbrook due to high 

abundance despite some environmental 

stressors. Redundancy and 

representation are limited due to the 

species’ narrow range and its single 

population; however, this is likely 

similar to historical conditions. 

Therefore, we conclude that the current 

risk of extinction is low. In the future, 

we project the Hamlin Valley pyrg 

population to have high resiliency due 

to predicted high abundance and 

protection of the water source from 

pumping due to wilderness designation 

of groundwater areas upslope of the 

spring province. Redundancy and 

representation are projected to continue 

to be limited due to the species’ narrow 

range and only one population, but this 

is likely similar to historical conditions 

for this narrow endemic species. In the 

future, we expect the species’ habitat to 

continue to provide for the needs of 

sufficient water quality, adequate 

substrate and vegetation, free-flowing 

water, and adequate spring discharge. 

Additionally, we consider the future 

risk of catastrophic or stochastic events 

affecting this species or its habitat to be 

low. 

The longitudinal gland pyrg currently 

occurs in three locations with 13 

occupied springbrooks in high overall 

resiliency condition, 5 springbrooks in 

moderate condition, and only 1 

springbrook in low condition. 

Resiliency is high in most springbrooks 

due to high abundance despite some 

environmental stressors. Competition 

and predation, spring modification, and 

vegetation and soil disturbance from 

grazing and roads are the only historical 

and current stressors. Because most 

populations exhibit high resilience 

despite the co-occurrence of stressors, 

we concluded that the stressors have a 

low to moderate effect on the 

longitudinal gland pyrg. Current 

abundance, range, and effects of 

stressors make it unlikely there would 

be a loss in redundancy or 

representation, and we expect the 

redundancy and representation to be 

adequate. Therefore, we conclude that 

the current risk of extinction is low. In 

the future, we project that the 

longitudinal gland pyrg will continue to 

have populations with high resiliency 

due to predicted high abundance 

despite the future effects of 

environmental stressors and because 

groundwater pumping is unlikely to 

occur in the foreseeable future. 

Redundancy and representation are 

projected to continue to be adequate in 

the future with three occupied spring 

systems with multiple occupied 

springbrooks. In the future, we expect 

the species’ habitat to continue to 

provide for the needs of sufficient water 

quality, adequate substrate and 

vegetation, free-flowing water, and 

adequate spring discharge. Additionally, 

we consider the future risk of 

catastrophic or stochastic events 

affecting this species or its habitat to be 

low. 

The sub-globose snake pyrg currently 

occurs in one spring system with 

multiple springbrooks in the upper 

reaches of the spring system in 

moderate resiliency condition. The 

spring system is a warm water system 

with temperatures greater than 25 

degrees Celsius (77 degrees Fahrenheit). 

The population appears to be resilient to 

environmental stressors; however, 

numbers of snails are down overall due 

to the recent invasion of armored catfish 

into the lower reaches of the system, 

which is the only current threat to the 

species. The upper reaches of the 

system still have high numbers of snails 

and a low probability of armored catfish 

invasion. The BLM, Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources, and the Service 

entered into the Conservation 

Agreement and Strategy for the Subglobose Snake Pyrg (Agreement) in 

2020. We evaluated the certainty that 

the conservation measures in the 

Agreement will be implemented and 

effective in our Policy for the Evaluation 

of Conservation Efforts (PECE) analysis. 

Using the criteria specified in PECE (68 

FR 15100, March 28. 2003), we have 

determined that all of the PECE criteria 

have been satisfied. We find that the 

2020 CAS has a high level of certainty 

for future implementation and certainty 

of the effectiveness. Nonnative fish 

removal efforts under the strategy have 

already begun to reduce armored catfish 

numbers in Gandy Warm Springs. 

Current redundancy and representation 

are limited due to the narrow range of 

the species and its single population, 

but this is likely similar to historical 

conditions. Therefore, we conclude that 

the current risk of extinction is low. Our 

assessment of the future status of this 

species takes into consideration the 

Agreement, which includes the 

continuation of conservation actions to 

eliminate nonnative fish from Gandy 

Warm Springs and prevent future 

invasion, thereby addressing this threat 

to the species. Future resiliency is 

expected to increase due to the removal 

of nonnative fish in accordance with the 

Agreement, the fact that groundwater 

pumping is unlikely, and the species’ 

past ability to sustain itself despite other 

environmental stressors. Redundancy 

and representation are projected to 

continue to be limited in the future due 

to the species’ narrow range and its 

single population, but this is likely 

similar to historical conditions. In the 

future, we expect the species’ habitat to 

continue to provide for the needs of 

sufficient water quality, adequate 

substrate and vegetation, free-flowing 

water, and adequate spring discharge. 

Additionally, we consider the future 

risk of catastrophic or stochastic events 

affecting the sub-globose snake pyrg or 

its habitat to be low. 

Therefore, we find that listing the 

Hamlin Valley pyrg, longitudinal gland 

pyrg, and sub-globose snake pyrg as 

endangered species or threatened 

species under the Act is not warranted. 

A detailed discussion of the basis for 

this finding can be found in the Hamlin 

Valley pyrg, longitudinal gland pyrg, 

and sub-globose snake pyrg species 

assessment and other supporting 

documents (see ADDRESSES, above). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 233 / Thursday, December 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 78037 

Johnson Springs Wetland Complex 

Population of Relict Dace 

Previous Federal Actions 

On June 27, 2014, we received a 

petition from Forest Service Employees 

for Environmental Ethics, requesting 

that the Johnson Springs Wetland 

Complex Population (JSWC) population 

of relict dace be listed as an endangered 

DPS under the Act. On April 10, 2015, 

we published a 90-day finding (80 FR 

19259) that the petition presented 

substantial information indicating that 

listing the JSWC population of relict 

dace may be warranted and that we 

were initiating a status review. This 

document constitutes our 12-month 

finding on the June 27, 2014 petition to 

list the JSWC population of relict dace 

under the Act. 

Summary of Finding 

The relict dace is a small fish in the 

Cyprinidae family that was first 

described in 1972 (Hubbs and Miller 

1972, pp. 101–102). It is found in spring 

systems in five isolated valleys in the 

northeastern corner of Nevada; these 

valleys are estimated to have been 

separated for hundreds of thousands of 

years. Four of these valleys contain 

native populations, including the JSWC, 

and one includes only introduced 

populations. 

Waterbodies occupied by the species 

include springs, spring pools, and 

spring outflows; wetlands; natural and 

human-modified channels; ditches; 

ephemeral reservoirs; and creeks. The 

relict dace feeds on aquatic 

invertebrates, including mayfly and 

damselfly nymphs; they consume 

relatively little plant material 

(Carmichael 1983, p. 88). Little is 

known about relict dace breeding or 

behavior; however, the species is 

considered secretive (NDOW 2007, p. 4). 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding whether the JSWC 

population of relict dace qualifies as a 

DPS. Based on our thorough review, we 

find that the JSWC population of relict 

dace meets our criteria for discreteness 

under our February 7, 1996 DPS policy 

(61 FR 4722); however, it does not meet 

the criteria for significance based on the 

four criteria outlined in the DPS policy. 

The JSWC population of relict dace does 

not occur in a unique or unusual setting 

for relict dace, does not show evidence 

that loss of the discrete population 

segment would result in a significant 

gap in the range of relict dace, and does 

not represent the only surviving native 

occurrence of relict dace. While genetic 

discontinuity demonstrates the JSWC 

population segment is markedly 

separate from other relict dace 

populations, we find no evidence that 

these measures of genetic divergence 

result in marked differences in the 

JSWC population segment’s genetic 

characteristics. Therefore, the JSWC 

relict dace population is not a listable 

entity under the Act. Because the JSWC 

population of relict dace is not a listable 

entity, we did not perform a status 

assessment under the five factors as 

required under section 4(a) of the Act. 

This finding constitutes our completion 

of our review of the petitioned action. 

A detailed discussion of the basis for 

this finding can be found in the JSWC 

population of relict dace species 

assessment and other supporting 

documents (see ADDRESSES, above). 

Clear Lake Hitch 

Previous Federal Actions 

We received a petition from the 

Center for Biological Diversity on 

September 25, 2012 (CBD 2012, entire), 

to list the Clear Lake hitch as threatened 

or endangered under the Act. The 

Service issued a 90-day finding on April 

10, 2015 (80 FR 19259), stating the 

petition presented substantial 

information that listing the Clear Lake 

hitch may be warranted and that we 

were initiating a status review. This 

document constitutes the 12-month 

finding on the September 25, 2012, 

petition to list the Clear Lake hitch. 

Summary of Finding 

The Clear Lake hitch (hitch) (Lavinia 

exilicauda chi) is a large cyprinid 

(freshwater minnow) that is endemic to 

the Clear Lake watershed in Lake 

County, California. Historically, the 

Clear Lake hitch occurred in several 

lakes and ponds found throughout the 

Clear Lake watershed, including: Clear 

Lake, Thurston Lake, Upper Blue Lake, 

Lower Blue Lake, and Lampson Pond. 

During the spring, Clear Lake hitch were 

also found in the numerous tributaries 

to these larger water bodies, including: 

Kelsey, Scott, Middle, Adobe, Seigler 

Canyon, Manning, Cole, Morrison, and 

Schindler Creeks. All of the 

waterbodies, listed above, with the 

exception of Thurston Lake, were 

hydrologically connected to each other 

in the past, and it appears that Thurston 

Lake and its tributary, Thurston Creek, 

have always been isolated from the 

other waterways. Local opinion is that 

hitch were introduced into Thurston 

Lake by a local resident less than 50 

years ago. The Clear Lake hitch is 

restricted to the Clear Lake watershed in 

Lake County, California, in the central 

Coast Range Mountains. Currently, the 

hitch is thought to be extirpated from 

the Blue Lakes, but still occurs in Clear 

and Thurston Lakes throughout the 

year. In the spring, reproductive adults 

migrate into tributary streams to spawn 

and then migrate back to the lakes after 

spawning. It is unclear whether 

Lampson Pond still exists; therefore, the 

status of the Clear Lake hitch in 

Lampson Pond is unknown. 

For most of the year, Clear Lake hitch 

are only found within their lacustrine 

(lake) environment. However, between 

February and May, a portion of the 

overall reproductive population begins 

to migrate into the surrounding 

tributaries to spawn. Spawning 

activities include one to five males 

pursuing a gravid female to fertilize her 

freshly extruded eggs, which are 

deposited on fine to medium sized 

gravel within the tributary stream. 

Fertilized eggs develop and hatch 

within 7 to 10 days, fry are freeswimming after another 7 to 10 days, 

and young migrate to the lake at about 

a month old before the streams dry up. 

Juvenile hitch are found within the 

nearshore habitat of the lake where they 

depend on submerged aquatic 

vegetation for cover and prey. Juvenile 

hitch move from the nearshore portion 

of the lake into open water in early-to 

late-fall. There is evidence that Clear 

Lake hitch do not require tributary 

streams with gravel to spawn, but can 

also spawn successfully in different 

portions of the lake (i.e., along the shore, 

the mouths of tributaries, and Rodman 

Slough) that lack a gravel substrate. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the Clear Lake 

hitch, and we evaluated all relevant 

factors under the five listing factors, 

including any regulatory mechanisms 

and conservation measures addressing 

these stressors. The primary stressors 

affecting the Clear Lake hitch’s 

biological status include habitat 

degradation, predation and competition, 

drought and climate change. Based on 

our examination of the best available 

scientific information, we have 

determined that habitat degradation, 

predation and competition, drought and 

climate change are not likely to 

adversely affect the overall viability of 

the Clear Lake hitch in a biologically 

meaningful way to such an extent that 

the species is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range for the following 

reasons: (1) The Clear Lake hitch has a 

long life span, (2) the Clear Lake hitch 

are highly fecund, and (3) the Clear Lake 

hitch has shown the ability to use 

different spawning strategies, which 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
78038 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 233 / Thursday, December 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

demonstrates its behavioral flexibility to 

variable environmental conditions. 

Additionally, regulatory mechanisms 

such as the California Endangered 

Species Act (CESA) and local 

ordinances are currently acting to 

ameliorate the severity of some existing 

threats, such as the take of individuals, 

degradation of tributary streams, and 

loss of wetland habitat surrounding 

Clear Lake. Furthermore, the SSA 

presented three plausible future 

scenarios, which included various states 

of potential future conditions for the 

species. Our analysis of these scenarios 

indicates that the Clear Lake hitch will 

maintain its current resiliency, 

representation, or redundancy, or 

undergo only a slight decrease in 

condition into the foreseeable future. 

Even under a projection of a slight 

decrease in future condition, the Clear 

Lake hitch was not projected to be in 

danger of extinction in the next 50 

years. 

Therefore, we find that listing the 

Clear Lake hitch as an endangered or 

threatened species under the Act is not 

warranted at this time. A detailed 

discussion of the basis for this finding 

can be found in the Clear Lake hitch 

species assessment form and other 

supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, 

above). 

New Information 

We request that you submit any new 

information concerning the taxonomy 

of, biology of, ecology of, status of, or 

stressors to the Doll’s daisy, Puget 

Oregonian, Rocky Mountain 

monkeyflower, southern white-tailed 

ptarmigan, tidewater amphipod, tufted 

puffin, Hamlin Valley pyrg, longitudinal 

gland pyrg, sub-globose snake pyrg, the 

Johnson Springs Wetland Complex 

population of relict dace, or Clear Lake 

hitch to the appropriate person, as 

specified under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT, whenever it 

becomes available. New information 

will help us monitor these species and 

make appropriate decisions about their 

conservation and status. We encourage 

local agencies and stakeholders to 

continue cooperative monitoring and 

conservation efforts. 

References Cited 

A list of the references cited in this 

petition finding is available on the 

internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

in the appropriate docket provided 

above in ADDRESSES and upon request 

from the appropriate person, as 

specified under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the Species 

Assessment Team, Ecological Services 

Program. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is section 

4 of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 

Aurelia Skipwith, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2020–26139 Filed 12–2–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 201125–0321] 

RIN 0648–BJ59 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod in the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule modifies 

Federal permit conditions and imposes 

participation requirements for certain 

federally permitted vessels when fishing 

for Pacific cod in state waters adjacent 

to the exclusive economic zone of the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands during 

the State of Alaska’s parallel Pacific cod 

fishery. This action is necessary to 

enhance Federal conservation, 

management, and catch accounting 

measures previously adopted by the 

North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council (Council) regarding license 

limitation, sector allocations, and catch 

reporting. This action is intended to 

promote the goals and objectives of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, the 

Fishery Management Plan for 

Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area, and 

other applicable law. 

DATES: Effective January 4, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the 

Categorical Exclusion and the 

Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) 

prepared for this action (referred to as 

the ‘‘Analysis’’) are available from 

http://www.regulations.gov or from the 

NMFS Alaska Region website at https:// 

www/fisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kurt 

Iverson, 907–586–7210. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for Action 

NMFS manages the groundfish 

fisheries in the U.S. exclusive economic 

zone (EEZ) of the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands (BSAI) under the 

Fishery Management Plan for 

Groundfish of the BSAI Management 

Area (FMP). The Council prepared, and 

NMFS approved, the FMP under the 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and 

implementing the FMP appear at 50 

CFR part 679. General regulations that 

pertain to U.S. fisheries appear at 

subpart H of 50 CFR part 600. 

NMFS published the proposed rule 

for these regulatory amendments in the 

Federal Register on September 18, 2020 

(85 FR 58322). A summary of comments 

on the proposed rule and NMFS’ 

responses are provided in the 

Comments and Responses section of this 

preamble. 

Summary of This Action 

In this rule, NMFS modifies Federal 

permit conditions and imposes 

participation requirements for certain 

federally permitted vessels when fishing 

for Pacific cod in State of Alaska waters 

(state waters) adjacent to the Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Bering Sea 

and Aleutian Islands (BSAI). The state 

waters portion of the Pacific cod fishery 

that runs concurrent with the Federal 

Pacific cod fishery is commonly known 

as the State’s parallel fishery. 

Throughout this preamble, ‘‘state 

waters’’ refers to the maritime waters 

from 0 to 3 nautical miles off Alaska, 

and ‘‘EEZ’’ and ‘‘Federal waters’’ are 

used interchangeably and refer to the 

maritime waters from 3 to 200 nautical 

miles off Alaska. In addition, ‘‘parallel 

fisheries’’ in this preamble refers to the 

state waters Pacific cod parallel fisheries 

in the State of Alaska Bering SeaAleutian Islands Area, which presently 

is in the Dutch Harbor Subdistrict of the 

Bering Sea and within the Aleutian 

Islands Subdistrict of the Aleutian 

Islands, respectively. 

This rule prohibits (1) a hook-andline, pot, or trawl gear vessel named on 

a Federal Fisheries Permit (FFP) or 

License Limitation Program (LLP) 

license from being used to catch and 

retain BSAI Pacific cod in State of 

Alaska (State) waters adjacent to the 

BSAI during the State’s parallel Pacific 

cod fishery unless the vessel is named 

on an FFP and LLP license that have the 

required endorsements; (2) a hook-andVerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Dec 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM 03DER1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES