[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 16, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31955-31972]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12522]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2018-0045; FXES11130900000-201-FF09E22000]
RIN 1018-BC03


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Water 
Howellia From the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY:  We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are 
removing water howellia (Howellia aquatilis) from the Federal List of 
Endangered and Threatened Plants. The best available scientific and 
commercial data indicate that threats to water howellia identified at 
the time of listing in 1994 are not as significant as originally 
determined and are being adequately managed. Therefore, the species no 
longer meets the definition of an endangered or a threatened species 
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. This 
determination is based on a thorough review of all available 
information, which indicates that this species' populations and 
distribution are much greater than were known at the time of listing 
and that threats to this species have been sufficiently minimized.

DATES: This rule is effective July 16, 2021.

ADDRESSES: This final rule, the supporting documents we used in 
preparing this rule, and public comments we received are available on 
the internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-
2018-0045. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf 
(TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jodi Bush, Office Supervisor, 
telephone: 406-449-5225. Direct all questions or requests for 
additional information to: WATER HOWELLIA QUESTIONS, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Montana Ecological Services Field Office, 585 Shepard 
Way, Suite 1, Helena, MT 59601. Persons who use a TDD may call the 
Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if a species is 
determined to no longer be an endangered or threatened species, we may 
reclassify the species or remove it from the Federal Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants due to recovery. A 
species is an ``endangered species'' for purposes of the Act if it is 
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range and is a ``threatened species'' if it is likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. The Act does not define the term 
``foreseeable future.'' However, we consider ``foreseeable future'' as 
that period of time within which a reasonable prediction can be relied 
upon in making a determination about the future conservation status of 
a species. Water howellia is listed as threatened. We are removing this 
species from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants 
(i.e., ``delist'' this species) because we have determined that it is 
not likely to become an endangered species now or

[[Page 31956]]

within the foreseeable future. Delisting a species can only be 
completed by issuing a rule.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we can determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any one or more 
of the following five factors or the cumulative effects thereof: (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. Based on an 
assessment of the best available information regarding the status of 
and threats to water howellia, we have determined that the species no 
longer meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species 
under the Act.
    This final rule recognizes that based on the best available 
science, water howellia has reached recovery. Collaborative 
conservation efforts including increased surveys, land transfers, and 
land management plans have all aided in the discovery of additional 
occurrences of the species and provided for long-term protection of the 
species.

Previous Federal Actions

    On October 7, 2019, we proposed to remove water howellia from the 
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (i.e., to ``delist'' 
the species) (84 FR 53380). For previous Federal actions occurring 
before October 7, 2019, please see the Previous Federal Actions section 
of the proposed rule.

Species Description and Habitat Information

    In this final rule, we discuss only those topics directly related 
to delisting water howellia. For more information on the description, 
biology, ecology, and habitat of water howellia, please refer to the 
final listing rule published in the Federal Register on July 14, 1994 
(59 FR 35860); the most recent 5-year review for water howellia 
completed in August of 2013 (USFWS 2013, entire); the draft recovery 
plan for water howellia, completed in September 1996 (USFWS 1996, 
entire); and the proposed delisting rule published in the Federal 
Register on October 7, 2019 (84 FR 53380). These documents are 
available as supporting materials on http://www.regulations.gov under 
Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2018-0045. We use concepts of resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation (Smith et al. 2018) in considering the 
species' viability. Resiliency is the ability of the species to 
maintain healthy populations that can withstand annual environmental 
variation and stochastic events. Redundancy is the ability of the 
species to maintain an adequate number and distribution of populations 
that can withstand catastrophic events. Representation is the ability 
of the species to adapt to changing environmental conditions through 
genetic, ecological, demographic, and behavioral diversity across its 
range.
    Water howellia was first collected in 1879, along the Columbia 
River in Multnomah County, Oregon (Gray 1880, entire), and is native to 
the northwestern United States. The taxonomy of water howellia as a 
full species in a monotypic genus is widely accepted as valid by the 
scientific community (The Plant List 2013, unpaginated; ITIS 2017).
    Water howellia is an annual, aquatic herb in the bellflower family 
(Campanulaceae). The entire plant is smooth, possessing no hairs or 
projections. The stems are fragile, submerged and floating, reaching up 
to 39 inches (in) (100 centimeters (cm)) in length. Stems branch 
several inches from the base, and each branch extends to the water 
surface. The numerous leaves are narrow and range from 1-2 in (25-50 
millimeters (mm)) long.
    Water howellia produce two types of flowers: Cleistogamous (closed) 
and chasmogamous (showy, open for pollination). Small cleistogamous 
flowers are produced along the stem below the water surface and are 
self-fertilizing. Chasmogamous flowers are produced on the water 
surface and commonly self-pollinate (Lesica et al. 1988, p. 276; Shelly 
and Moseley 1988, pp. 5-6).
    Suitable water howellia habitat typically includes small, vernal 
freshwater wetlands and ponds with an annual cycle of filling with 
water in spring and drying up in summer or autumn (USFWS 1996, p. 14). 
These habitats can be glacial potholes or depressions (Shapley and 
Lesica 1997, p. 8; U.S. Department of Defense (USDOD) 2017a, p. 1) or 
river oxbows (Lesica 1997, p. 366) in Montana and western Washington, 
riverine meander scars (Idaho NHP 2017, p. 1; Wiechmann 2014a, p. 3) in 
Idaho, glacial-flood remnant wetlands (Robison 2007, p. 8) in eastern 
Washington, or landslide depressions (Johnson 2013, pers. comm.) in 
California, but are all ephemeral (transitory) to some degree. 
Depending on annual patterns of temperature and precipitation, the 
drying of the ponds may be complete or partial by autumn; these sites 
are usually shallow and less than 3 feet (ft) (1 meter (m)) in depth. 
Some ponds supporting water howellia are dependent on complex ground 
and surface water interactions. Snow melt runoff is important in 
maintaining suitable conditions in the spring, while localized 
groundwater flow mitigates water loss from evaporation and plant 
transpiration later in the summer (Reeves and Woessner 2004, pp. 7-9).
    The drying of water howellia habitat in late summer and autumn is 
important because water howellia seeds only germinate when exposed to 
air (Lesica 1990). Upon air exposure, seeds either germinate in the 
fall and produce seedlings that overwinter under snowcover, or 
germinate the following spring, with seeds lying on top of the soil 
through winter. Water howellia seedlings that overwinter in soil resume 
growth in spring in northern climates (Mincemoyer 2005, p. 3) or begin 
growing after fall germination in southern climates (e.g., California) 
(Johnson 2013, pers. comm.). Spring growth in California and low-
elevation occurrences in western Washington typically commence in early 
April, and in eastern Washington, Idaho, and Montana by early May. 
Rangewide, emergent (chasmogamous) flowers bloom soon after the stems 
reach the water surface and are typically present from May through 
July. Seed dispersal starts in June from submerged (cleistogamous) 
flowers and extends until late summer from emergent flowers (Shelly and 
Moseley 1988, p. 5).
    Decreased germination rates have been documented for seeds residing 
in the soil longer than 8 months (Lesica 1992, pp. 415-416). However, 
monitoring data and observations from Montana (U.S. Forest Service 
(USFS) 2002, pp. 6-7; USFWS 1996, pp. 17-18) and Washington (Gilbert 
2008, pers. comm.) show the presence of water howellia after 2 
consecutive years with no plant observations, suggesting seeds may 
remain viable for at least 3 years. This life-history strategy likely 
provides a buffer against unfavorable growing conditions in consecutive 
years.
    Composition and depth of substrates in vernal wetlands are also 
important characteristics of suitable water howellia habitat. 
Substrates composed of both coarse organic and mineral sediments are 
correlated with presence of water howellia (Lesica 1992, p. 417). 
Similarly, water howellia growth in a laboratory setting was highest in 
coarse organic substrate (Lesica 1992, p. 416). However, mean depth of 
the organic sediment layer was significantly less in ponds with water 
howellia, relative to depth in ponds without water howellia (Lesica 
1992, p. 417). These results

[[Page 31957]]

indicate a moderate amount of organic sediment (with some mineral soil) 
in wetland substrates may be optimum for water howellia presence and 
growth.
    Water howellia occupies habitats across its range that vary in the 
extent of canopy cover, suggesting some flexibility to potential 
effects of disturbance on canopy cover. Many water howellia occurrences 
are surrounded or nearly surrounded by forested vegetation (Mincemoyer 
2005, p. 7), with numerous observations reporting water howellia 
occupying shaded portions of ponds and wetlands (Isle 1997, p. 32; 
McCarten et al. 1998, p. 4). Conversely, on the Joint Base Lewis-
McChord (JBLM) military base in Washington, occupied ponds were 
historically surrounded by prairie vegetation and, as a result of years 
of fire suppression, are now surrounded by forest (Gilbert 2017, pers. 
comm.). Currently, water howellia is occurring in portions of ponds 
that receive the most light and least shade (Gilbert 2017, pers. 
comm.). In Montana's Swan Valley, water howellia was present in 78 
percent of sites with prior disturbance (roads, fire, grazing, and/or 
vegetation treatments) of vegetation surrounding the ponds (Pipp 2017, 
p. 6), indicating some plasticity to the effects of disturbance on 
extent of canopy cover.

Range, Distribution, Abundance, and Trends of Water Howellia

    The distribution of water howellia before European settlement and 
modern development in the Pacific Northwest is unknown. However, after 
European settlement, water howellia is known from the Pacific 
Northwest, with historical occurrences documented in California, 
Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana (Shelly and Moseley 1988, pp. 6, 
9). The species still occurs in all five States. Since listing in 1994, 
new occurrences of water howellia have been documented in all five 
States, generally in areas within these States known historically to 
support the species.
    At the time of Federal listing (1994), 107 water howellia 
occurrences were known across the species' range (59 FR 35860; July 14, 
1994). In 2020, a minimum of 307 occurrences were documented (see Table 
1, below). The majority of extant occurrences (91 percent) are within 
three metapopulations occupying distinct geographic areas in Montana's 
Swan Valley (Lake and Missoula Counties); Department of Defense 
property at JBLM, Pierce County in western Washington; and Turnbull 
National Wildlife Refuge (Turnbull Refuge), Spokane County in 
northeastern Washington (see the figure, below). The three 
metapopulations have enabled the species to remain viable across its 
range (Freckleton and Watkinson 2002, p. 419). Small, isolated 
occurrences that are not part of a metapopulation can be more 
vulnerable to extirpation (Lesica 1992, p. 420). Consequently, 
identification of these metapopulations is important for directing 
conservation efforts toward the regional availability of suitable 
habitat (Freckleton and Watkinson 2002, p. 432). Currently, 258 of the 
307 (84 percent) reported water howellia occurrences are on lands 
administered by the Federal Government. There are 37 reported 
occurrences of water howellia on private property; however, little is 
known about them, as limited monitoring of these occurrences has taken 
place over the years. Two occurrences of water howellia are on State 
land and the remaining occurrences exist in areas with several 
jurisdictions (i.e., straddle public and private lands).

  Table 1--Current Number of Water Howellia Occurrences and Percent of
                    Total Known Occurrences by State
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Percent of
                  State                      Number of      total known
                                            occurrences     occurrences
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Montana.................................             220              72
Idaho...................................               7               2
Washington..............................              72              23
Oregon..................................               2              <1
California..............................               7               2
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................             308  ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 31958]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JN21.001

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
    Population trends for water howellia are difficult to determine. 
Substantial numbers of new occurrences have been discovered since 
listing in 1994, and, most recently, occurrences have been documented 
in Oregon, where the species was thought to be extirpated. However, 
this may not necessarily indicate a positive population trend. Rather, 
this could indicate increased efficiency at finding new occurrences. 
Consistent, standardized monitoring has not occurred across the range 
of the species, making it difficult to document trends, even when 
repeat monitoring has occurred at occupied sites (Fertig 2019, pp. 40-
45). Additionally, an occurrence is broadly defined, and abundance of 
individual water howellia plants within occurrences fluctuates widely. 
This is due, in part, to environmental conditions of the preceding 
autumn, which affect seed

[[Page 31959]]

germination rates. Nevertheless, based on the discovery of many new 
occurrences and few recent extirpations of existing occurrences, 
distribution of the species appears to be currently stable.
    Genetic variation among water howellia occurrences is low. 
Occurrences in California and Montana are genetically similar; however, 
occurrences in Idaho and Washington are more distantly related 
(Schierenbeck and Phipps 2010, p. 5). These data suggest that gene flow 
is occurring between occurrences separated by large geographic 
distances, albeit at a relatively low rate. A correlation between 
migratory waterfowl routes with either genetic similarity or distance 
indicates that waterfowl may be transporting seed or plant material 
between water howellia population areas (Schierenbeck and Phipps 2010, 
pp. 6-7). A more robust sampling and genetic analysis of water howellia 
occurrences across the species' range would be necessary to support or 
refute this hypothesis.

Conservation Efforts

    A recovery plan for water howellia was drafted in 1996, but never 
finalized (USFWS 1996, entire). Despite having not been finalized, the 
draft recovery plan constitutes the best available information on what 
objective, measurable criteria should be met in order to delist the 
species. Here, we provide a summary of progress made on the draft 
recovery criteria for water howellia. More detailed information related 
to conservation efforts can be found below under Summary of Factors 
Affecting the Species.
    1. Recovery criterion: Management practices, in accordance with 
habitat management plans, have reduced and/or controlled anthropogenic 
threats, thereby maintaining the species and its habitat integrity 
throughout the currently known range on public lands in five geographic 
areas for 10 years after the effective date of the final recovery plan 
(when finalized). Monitoring will demonstrate the effectiveness of 
management plans. Management plans will be in place for, at a minimum, 
the occurrences listed in the following table:

                            Table 2--Formalized Management Plans per Geographic Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Current number
                                                             Minimum number    of occurrences
                                                             of occurrences      covered by
                      Geographic area                         identified in   management plans  Years management
                                                             draft recovery      (percent of     plans in place
                                                                  plan              total
                                                                                occurrences)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Montana...................................................                67          191 (62)                22
Spokane County, Washington................................                33           37 (12)                12
Pierce County, Washington.................................                 5            19 (6)                16
Clark County, Washington..................................                 4             4 (1)                 9
Mendocino County, California..............................                 5             7 (2)                24
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Totals................................................               114          258 (84)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Progress: Despite the recovery plan not being finalized, management 
plans are in place on Federal lands for the minimum number of 
occurrences identified in Table 2, above.
    Monitoring indicates management plans have been effective at 
maintaining the minimum number of occurrences by reducing or 
eliminating anthropogenic threats associated with land management 
activities (e.g., timber harvest, road construction, and maintenance) 
and other threats (e.g., invasive species). Prior to formalized 
management plans, some conservation efforts were occurring on Federal, 
State, and some private land. In addition, survey efforts have 
documented substantially more occurrences of water howellia rangewide 
than were known at the time of listing (Mincemoyer 2005, pp. 4-5; 
Frymire 2017, pers. comm.; Gilbert 2017, pers. comm.; Johnson 2017, 
pers. comm.; Lichthardt and Pekas 2017, p. 1; ORBIC 2017, unpaginated; 
Rule 2017, pers. comm.).
    2. Recovery criterion: Foster or promote the conservation of 
occurrences on lands not addressed by agency management plans. 
Specifically, this recovery criterion recommends long-term conservation 
measures for the occurrence in Latah County, Idaho.
    Progress: Long-term conservation measures for water howellia have 
been established through land transfers, conservation easements, and 
management plans on some private lands. In Montana's Swan Valley, 
large-scale land transfers (67,000 acres (ac) (27,000 hectares (ha)) 
for the benefit of many species have occurred, and land supporting 
known water howellia occurrences has been transferred from private to 
Federal ownership. These occurrences are now protected under Federal 
agency management plans and conservation strategies. One occurrence 
located on private land in Latah County, Idaho, is protected under a 
conservation agreement, held in perpetuity by the Palouse Land Trust. 
In the 5-year review (USFWS 2013, p. 6), it was noted that, in addition 
to the conservation agreement, a management plan for this occurrence 
was being developed (Trujillo 2017, pers. comm.). However, recent 
communications with Palouse Land Trust indicate that a management plan 
still needs to be developed for this occurrence (Englund 2020, pers. 
comm.). Two other occurrences of water howellia on the Coeur d'Alene 
Reservation in Idaho are being actively managed under the direction of 
a tribal water howellia management plan (Green 2018, pp. 3-9). The 
Coeur d'Alene tribe is planning to use active stream/wetland and 
floodplain restoration, riparian buffering, and outplanting to conserve 
existing water howellia occurrences and expand the distribution of the 
species into nearby potentially suitable habitat (Green 2018, entire). 
The Service is unaware of any information regarding additional efforts 
to protect water howellia occurrences on private land in other parts of 
the species' range.
    3. Recovery criterion: A post-delisting strategy for monitoring the 
species' population dynamics is in place.
    Progress: We have developed a post-delisting monitoring plan in 
cooperation with State, Federal, Tribal, and nongovernmental 
conservation partners. The final post-delisting monitoring plan is 
available for public review on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket 
No. FWS-R6-ES-2018-0045.

[[Page 31960]]

    Additionally, the 5-year review recommended development of a 
memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the USFS and U.S. Department of 
Defense (USDOD) to ensure the continuation of existing conservation 
measures currently benefitting water howellia. Although a formal MOU 
has not been developed, both agencies have specific conservation 
strategies in place for the conservation of water howellia (for 
specific conservation strategies, see discussion of land management 
effects under A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, 
or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range, below).

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    Based on public comments on our October 7, 2019, proposed rule (84 
FR 53380) and information provided to us by peer reviewers, we made 
updates or provided additional clarity on information concerning 
population monitoring vs. surveying, predicted effects of invasive 
species, regulatory mechanisms, climate change, wetland/pond hydrology, 
genetic diversity, cumulative effects, post-delisting monitoring, and 
metapopulation structure. We also made other minor editorial 
clarifications and corrections in this final rule.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for listing 
species, reclassifying species, or removing species from listed status. 
``Species'' is defined by the Act as including any species or 
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct vertebrate 
population segment of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 
U.S.C. 1532(16)). The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a 
species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range,'' and a ``threatened species'' as a 
species that is ``likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' The Act requires that we determine whether any species is an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species'' because of any of 
the following factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) disease or predation;
    (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    We must consider these same five factors in delisting a species. 
For species that are already listed as endangered or threatened 
species, this analysis of threats is an evaluation of both the threats 
currently facing the species and the threats that are reasonably likely 
to affect the species in the foreseeable future following the removal 
of the Act's protections. According to 50 CFR 424.11(e), we may delist 
a species if our status review of the best available scientific and 
commercial data indicates that the species is neither endangered nor 
threatened for the following reasons: (1) The species is extinct; (2) 
the species does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species (e.g., due to recovery); or (3) the listed entity 
does not meet the statutory definition of a species.
    Water howellia is currently listed as threatened. Section 3(20) of 
the Act defines a ``threatened species'' as any species which is likely 
to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act does not 
define the term ``foreseeable future.'' 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 we can reasonably determine that both 
the future threats and the species' responses to those threats are 
likely. In other words, the foreseeable future is the period of time in 
which we can make reliable predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean 
``certain''; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of 
confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is 
reasonable to depend on it when making decisions.
    It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future 
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future 
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should 
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the 
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history 
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the 
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as 
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and 
other demographic factors.
    For water howellia, we consider 30 years to be a reasonable period 
of time within which reliable predictions can be made for the species. 
This time period includes multiple generations of water howellia. 
Additionally, various global climate models and emission scenarios 
provide consistent predictions within that timeframe (IPCC 2014, p. 
11). We consider 30 years a relatively conservative timeframe in view 
of the long-term protections in place for 84 percent of the species' 
occupied habitat occurring on Federal land.
    A recovered species has had threats removed or reduced to the point 
that it no longer meets the Act's definition of an ``endangered 
species'' or a ``threatened species.'' A species is an ``endangered 
species'' for purposes of the Act if it is in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range and is a 
``threatened species'' if it is likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. For the purposes of this analysis, we will evaluate whether or 
not the currently listed species, water howellia, should continue to be 
listed as threatened, based on the best scientific and commercial 
information available.
    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'' or that it should 
remain listed as such. In determining whether a species meets either 
definition, we must evaluate all identified threats by considering the 
species' expected response 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

[[Page 31961]]

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 following analysis examines the factors currently affecting 
water howellia or that are likely to affect it within the foreseeable 
future.

Habitat-Based Threats

    At the time of listing (59 FR 35860; July 14, 1994), the following 
potential habitat-based threats were identified for this species: (1) 
Invasive species, (2) land management (primarily timber harvest and 
road building), (3) trampling by domestic livestock, (4) direct habitat 
loss from urbanization or dam construction, and (5) the narrow 
ecological requirements of the species. In the analysis that follows, 
we also considered climate change in the context of the species' narrow 
ecological requirements.

Invasive Species

    In the final listing rule (59 FR 35860; July 14, 1994), invasive 
plant species were identified as a threat to water howellia in habitats 
where they overlap. Invasive species, such as reed canarygrass 
(Phalaris arundinacea), sweet flag (Acorus calamus), and yellow flag 
iris (Iris pseudacorus), were identified to have the capacity to 
outcompete water howellia, presumably for nutrients and space (Lesica 
1997, p. 367; Clegg et al. 2000, p. 13; Lichthardt and Pekas 2017, 
entire). These invasive species may have the potential to extirpate 
water howellia occurrences (59 FR 35860; July 14, 1994), and as a 
result, we focus our analysis on these species. The best available 
information does not indicate any potentially significant negative 
impacts to water howellia from any other invasive species.
    Reed canarygrass is present in water howellia habitat in all 
States, except California (Johnson 2017, pers. comm.), but the extent 
of invasion varies by site (Gilbert 2017, pers. comm.; Rule 2017, pers. 
comm.; Shelly 2017, pers. comm.; Lesica 1997, pp. 367-368). Abundance 
of reed canarygrass in ponds occupied by water howellia on the Turnbull 
National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) has fluctuated through time, with no 
definitive long-term trend (Rule 2017, pers. comm.; Rule 2020, in 
progress). Abundance of reed canarygrass in ponds occupied by water 
howellia on the JBLM has also fluctuated through time, with no 
definitive long-term trend (Gilbert 2017, pers. comm.; Gilbert 2020, 
pers. comm.). In Montana, reed canarygrass is present in many ponds 
occupied by water howellia, but increased distribution has not been 
detected recently (Shelly et al. 2016, entire; Shelly 2017, pers. 
comm.). However, reed canarygrass invaded Swan River Oxbow Preserve in 
the Swan Valley in Montana, and water howellia was subsequently 
extirpated at that site (Lesica 1997, pp. 367-368; Lesica 2001, p. 2). 
In Idaho, monitoring efforts have not detected any decreases in pond 
size, which may act as a surrogate for reed canarygrass colonization; 
however, detailed monitoring of the species has not been conducted 
(Lichthardt and Pekas 2017, p. 6). Little is known about the extent of 
reed canarygrass invasion with regard to water howellia occurrences in 
Oregon.
    The mechanisms driving the invasive potential of reed canarygrass 
within water howellia habitats are unclear. The invasive potential may 
be due to some sites being occupied by a native genotype of reed 
canarygrass and other sites being occupied by a highly invasive variety 
(Casler et al. 2009, entire; Lichthardt and Pekas 2017, p. 8; Wiechmann 
2014a, p. 31; Jakubowski et al. 2013, entire; Merigliano and Lesica 
1998, entire). Density of reed canarygrass is a better determinant of 
impact to water howellia occurrences than presence alone (Wiechmann 
2014a, pp. 31, 34, 38). Additionally, in some ponds, reed canarygrass 
was found to be dominant at shallower water depths and water howellia 
dominant at deeper depths (Wiechmann 2014a, p. 32).
    Success of mechanical and chemical treatment efforts to decrease 
the abundance and distribution of reed canarygrass have varied across 
the range of water howellia. In California, mechanical treatment has 
limited the spread of reed canarygrass in ponds and wetlands adjacent 
to water howellia occurrences, and chemical treatment is further 
reducing the size of reed canarygrass patches (Johnson 2011, 2017, 
pers. comm.). Similarly, consistent suppression of reed canarygrass at 
JBLM (military base) in Washington has reduced patch sizes of the plant 
in the past (TNC 2006, p. 65; Engler 2008, pers. comm.; Gilbert 2008, 
pers. comm.). Currently, no suppression efforts are underway at JBLM, 
due to little change in reed canarygrass distribution and the risk of 
harming water howellia plants in the process (Gilbert 2017, pers. 
comm.). In Idaho, the success of suppression efforts to limit abundance 
and distribution of reed canarygrass were mixed (Lichthardt and Gray 
2010, p. 9). However, once suppression efforts were stopped, 
distribution and abundance of reed canarygrass appeared to vary more 
with fluctuating environmental conditions than with the presence of 
suppression effort (Lichthardt and Gray 2010, p. 9). No suppression 
efforts to control or eradicate reed canarygrass on the Turnbull NWR in 
Washington are currently underway; the species is present, but trends 
indicate variability in abundance with fluctuating environmental 
conditions (Rule 2009, 2013a, 2017, pers. comm.). In Montana, 
suppression efforts of reed canarygrass have been somewhat successful 
in some areas (Annen 2010, entire; Healy 2015 and references therein, 
entire) and not successful in other areas (Lesica and Martin 2004, 
entire; Lesica 2001, entire).
    Sweet flag was identified by the State of Idaho as an invasive 
species that may be displacing water howellia at one location (Idaho 
Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 2016, p. 3). Monitoring at this 
location has been ongoing since 1999, and water howellia has not been 
observed since 2001 (Lichthardt and Pekas 2017, p. 2). However, we are 
unaware of any other water howellia occurrences being affected by sweet 
flag. As a result, sweet flag is unlikely to become a threat to water 
howellia.
    Yellow flag iris is an invasive plant that has been identified in 
ponds occupied by water howellia on JBLM in Washington. While it 
appears yellow flag iris may have the ability to displace or outcompete 
water howellia in some environments, the infestations on JBLM occur in 
relatively small areas, and their spread has been controlled by 
herbicides or mechanical removal (Clegg et al. 2000, p. 13; Gilbert 
2019, pers. comm.).
    Invasive plants can be aggressive and quickly displace native 
plants in some situations. While there are some small sites that may 
have been completely or partially overtaken by invasive plants, water 
howellia metapopulations appear to maintain viability in the face of 
invasive species. This conclusion is reinforced by reed canarygrass 
coexisting with extant water howellia occurrences; large-scale 
displacement of water howellia by reed canarygrass is not occurring in 
any of the metapopulations (Swan Valley, Montana; Turnbull NWR and 
JBLM, Washington), even in the absence of suppression efforts. Given 
the absence of displacement of water howellia by reed canarygrass 
within the three metapopulations of water howellia, and the success of 
existing suppression efforts where they have been applied, we do not 
consider reed canarygrass to be a significant threat to water howellia. 
The best available information does not indicate that any other 
invasive species likely pose a threat to water howellia.

[[Page 31962]]

Land Management Activities
    Land management activities that cause disturbance to vegetation 
surrounding water howellia occurrences were identified as a threat to 
the species in the final listing rule (59 FR 35860; July 14, 1994). 
Previous modeling efforts suggested that these activities, singularly 
or in combination, could result in a loss of vegetation at the pond 
fringe, disrupting the hydrological cycle and negatively impacting the 
phenology of water howellia (Reeves and Woessner 2004, pp. 10, 15). 
However, more recent evidence indicates that effects from land 
management activities are no longer a threat to the species.
    Most land management activities that could disturb vegetation 
surrounding water howellia occurrences on USFS land are now prohibited 
or designed to minimize impacts to water howellia. For example, land 
management activities on the Flathead National Forest in Montana must 
create a favorable physical environment that protects against 
hydrological changes that may adversely impact water howellia (USDA 
2018, pp. 45-46). These desired conditions and guidelines were 
incorporated as part of the revised Flathead National Forest Plan in 
2018. On the Mendocino National Forest in California, activities that 
could disturb vegetation within 300 ft (91 m) of water howellia 
occurrences are typically not allowed because of standards and 
guidelines to protect the plant (USFS 1995, p. IV-32; Johnson 2013, 
pers. comm.). Limited activities (including prescribed fire) may be 
allowed within the 300-ft (91-m) buffer, but only if needed to maintain 
the integrity of the buffer (USDA 2018, pp. 18-23, 44-46; Johnson 2013, 
pers. comm.). The 2018 revised Flathead National Forest Plan in Montana 
has also incorporated the conservation strategy for water howellia, 
which was finalized in 1997 (USFS 1997, entire; for a more in-depth 
discussion of land management plans, see Existing Regulatory 
Mechanisms, below). As a result of these actions, abundance and 
distribution of water howellia have remained stable in Montana's Swan 
Valley from 1978 to 2014 (Pipp 2017, p. 14).
    On State land in Montana, clear-cutting of timber and prescribed 
fire are prohibited within defined buffers surrounding waterbodies 
(Montana Code Annotated 2019, title 77, chapter 5, part 3, at 77-5-
303). In Washington, buffer zones are established in wetlands 
containing water howellia on Turnbull NWR when mechanical thinning and 
prescribed fire are used to treat conifer encroachment (Rule 2009, 
pers. comm.). Timber harvest and prescribed fire were not identified as 
potential threats to other water howellia occurrences in Washington 
(USDOD 2006, entire; USDOD 2012, entire; USDOD 2017a, entire; Anderson 
2013, pers. comm.; Gilbert 2013, 2017, pers. comm.), or occurrences in 
Oregon or Idaho (Currin 2013, pers. comm.; USFWS 2009, entire; IDFG 
2016, entire).
    Some disturbance of vegetation surrounding water howellia 
occurrences from land management activities occurred historically, 
prior to existing guidelines and standards in Federal land management 
plans. For example, in Montana's Swan Valley, historical disturbances 
caused from land management activities (e.g., timber harvest, timber 
thinning, prescribed fire, road building, grazing) have occurred in 
vegetated buffers surrounding many of the existing water howellia 
occurrences (Pipp 2017, p. 6). However, 79 percent of existing water 
howellia occurrences in the Swan Valley have experienced at least one 
historical disturbance event in the surrounding vegetation and are 
still viable, indicating some tolerance of water howellia to buffer 
disturbance. In addition, abundance or distribution of water howellia 
in the Swan Valley has remained stable, despite these historical 
disturbances from land management activities (Pipp 2017, p. 14). 
Furthermore, despite experiencing a stand-replacing fire in 2003, water 
howellia occurrences in the affected area of the Swan Valley are 
stable; buffer vegetation appears to have recovered, and hydrology is 
adequately functioning (Pipp 2017, pp. 14-15).
    The effects of historical road building within vegetated buffers 
surrounding water howellia occurrences have largely been mitigated on 
Federal and State lands. Guidance established in the revised Flathead 
National Forest Plan indicates that maintenance on roads within 300 ft 
(92 m) of ponds providing habitat for water howellia should maintain or 
improve hydrological integrity to protect habitat conditions (USDA 
2018, pp. 45-46). No effects of historical roads occurring within 
vegetated buffers on water howellia in the Swan Valley were found in a 
recent analysis (Pipp 2017, p. 16). Similarly, in California, small 
spur roads are being closed and hydrologically stabilized in areas 
occupied by water howellia on the Mendocino National Forest to minimize 
anthropogenic contribution to landscape instability per direction in 
the Mendocino National Forest Plan (USFS 1995, p. III-26; Johnson 2008, 
pers. comm.). These conservation measures appear to be working in 
California, as six of the seven known occurrences of water howellia are 
still viable. In Idaho, the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) 
avoids adverse effects to wetlands during project implementation, and a 
Best Management Practices Manual identifies measures to minimize any 
potential effects during project implementation (ITD 2014, entire; ITD 
2017, p. 1). The State of Idaho identified two water howellia 
occurrences within 98 ft (30 m) of an established highway and expressed 
concern about indirect effects of road work resulting in sedimentation 
and, of less concern, potential removal of shade (IDFG 2016, p. 4). 
However, the best available information does not indicate any potential 
effects that road work may pose to this population. Roads were not 
cited as a threat to water howellia occurrences in Washington or Oregon 
(USDOD 2006, entire; USDOD 2012, entire; USDOD 2017a, entire; USFWS 
2007, entire; USFWS 2010; entire; Anderson 2013, pers. comm.; Currin 
2013, pers. comm.).
    Land management activities (e.g., timber harvest, timber thinning, 
road building, grazing, and prescribed fire) that disturb vegetation 
surrounding water howellia occurrences were once considered a threat to 
the species. However, most land management activities that have the 
potential to disturb surrounding vegetation are prohibited by land 
management plans or other Federal or State policy. Some of these 
prohibitions were put in place as a result of the species being listed, 
but will remain in effect for the duration of the land management plan 
or other policy, even when the species is delisted. Where disturbance 
of vegetation from land management activities has occurred, water 
howellia has shown some tolerance for disturbance and no downward trend 
in presence or distribution. Given that all three metapopulations 
currently have conservation measures in place to avoid vegetative 
buffer disturbance from land management activities and that water 
howellia has shown some tolerance to disturbance when it occurs, we no 
longer consider land management activities to be a significant threat 
to water howellia.
Trampling by Domestic Livestock
    Trampling of water howellia by domestic livestock was cited as a 
threat in the final listing rule for the species (59 FR 35860; July 14, 
1994). Direct effects of plant crushing, seed bank disturbance, and 
alterations to substrate are likely to occur when livestock enter and 
exit ponds and wetlands. In addition, increased nutrient loading may be 
an indirect effect of livestock

[[Page 31963]]

occupancy in and near water howellia habitat. Some water howellia 
occurrences are within habitats actively used by livestock. However, 
the level of livestock-caused disturbance that water howellia can 
withstand is not known and likely varies with site-specific conditions, 
as well as timing, severity, and duration of livestock use of occupied 
water howellia habitat.
    The effects of trampling on water howellia occurrences on Federal 
and State land have largely been mitigated by fencing, cattle 
barricades, elimination of grazing in some areas occupied by water 
howellia, or limitations on the duration of time livestock have access 
to sensitive pond and wetland habitats (USFS 2002, p. 6; Mincemoyer 
2005, p. 11; Johnson 2008, 2013, pers. comm.; Frymire 2017, pers. 
comm.). In Montana, analyses of monitoring data spanning nearly 30 
years have concluded that despite some grazing in occupied habitat, the 
presence of water howellia has not been affected (Pipp 2017, p. 17).
    Although no causal link was made between grazing levels and the 
probability of water howellia presence in the Pipp (2017) analysis, it 
appears that management actions such as fencing, cattle guards, and 
exclusion implemented concurrently with grazing have provided 
protections to water howellia habitat and allowed the species to be 
conserved in Montana's Swan Valley (Pipp 2017, p. 17). In California, 
specific grazing regimes near five occupied ponds within an active 
grazing allotment on National Forest land appear to be effective; 
monitoring indicates no effects to water howellia occurrences from 
livestock trampling (Johnson 2013, pers. comm.). Two other water 
howellia occurrences in California are within inactive grazing 
allotments, where livestock are not currently present and not expected 
to be present in the future (Johnson 2013, 2017, pers. comm.). 
Trampling is not reported as a threat in Washington, Idaho, or Oregon 
(USDOD 2006, entire; USDOD 2017a, entire; USFWS 2007, entire; USFWS 
2010, entire; Currin 2013, pers. comm.; IDFG 2016, entire). It is 
unknown where grazing may occur on the 37 occurrences (12 percent of 
total known occurrences) on private property. Therefore, the extent of 
trampling and other livestock-related alterations to water howellia 
habitat on these private lands is unknown. However, potential trampling 
effects from livestock on Federal and State land have been largely 
mitigated.
    Trampling of water howellia by domestic livestock is not a threat 
to the species on Federal or State land at current grazing levels 
because of mitigation measures being implemented, including riparian 
fencing, cattle guards, and timely removal or relocation of livestock 
from sensitive pond and wetland habitats. The best available 
information does not indicate that levels of livestock use (and thus 
potential trampling) will increase beyond current levels in the future. 
The severity and frequency of trampling of water howellia occurrences 
on private land are unknown, but as significantly fewer water howellia 
occurrences are known from private lands, any impacts are likely not 
significant at the species level and have not affected recovery, which 
has been achieved based on species viability on State and Federal 
lands. We conclude, based on the available information, that trampling 
by domestic livestock is not a significant threat to water howellia.
Habitat Loss From Urbanization and Dam Construction
    Habitat loss from urbanization and dam construction occurred 
historically, particularly in Oregon, and was considered a threat to 
water howellia at the time of listing in 1994. However, additional 
habitat loss from urbanization and dam construction is no longer a 
threat to the species because conservation strategies implemented 
following listing and increased Federal ownership now provide 
additional protections (see Conservation Efforts, above).
    Direct habitat loss from urbanization and dam construction occurred 
along the Columbia River in Oregon, and water howellia was thought to 
be extirpated from that area prior to 2015 (USFWS 2017, entire; Norman 
2010, pers. comm.). However, since then, two occurrences of water 
howellia have been located in the Portland, Oregon, metro area (ORBIC 
2017, unpaginated).
    Most of the water howellia occurrences on corporate or private 
lands in Montana were previously owned by Plum Creek Timber. In 2007, 
approximately 67,000 ac (27,000 ha) of Plum Creek land in the Swan 
Valley were sold to The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Trust for Public 
Land; ownership was then transferred to either the USFS or the State of 
Montana (Swan Valley Connections 2017, entire). The 47 water howellia 
occurrences and potential habitat that were formerly on Plum Creek land 
are now protected from urbanization through either the Flathead 
National Forest Plan (USFS 1997, entire) or State agency direction for 
managing timberlands (DNRC 1996, p. 1). The Flathead National Forest 
Plan mandates avoidance of disturbance, including urbanization, in 
forested buffers of a minimum of 300 ft (91 m) from water howellia 
occurrences. The State of Montana manages its timberlands for long-term 
revenue and biodiversity (DNRC 1996, p. 2) and not for short-term 
revenue from selling timbered State lands and the potential 
urbanization that may follow.
    It is unknown if historical habitat loss occurred in California; 
however, most known occurrences of water howellia are within USFS 
lands, including some within designated wilderness areas (Johnson 2013, 
pers. comm.). Therefore, no current or future threat of habitat loss 
from urbanization is expected because any disturbance of vegetated 
buffers surrounding water howellia ponds is prohibited under the 
Mendocino National Forest Plan unless it is necessary to promote 
natural ecological and hydrological function (USFS 1995, pp. IV-19, 
35). It is unknown how urbanization has affected the 37 water howellia 
occurrences on private land, but because there are significantly fewer 
occurrences known from private lands (12 percent of total known 
occurrences), these impacts are likely not significant at the species' 
level.
    In sum, habitat loss from urbanization and dam construction 
occurred historically, particularly in Oregon, but is no longer 
considered a significant threat. In Oregon, recent new discoveries of 
water howellia indicate that the species has been able to remain extant 
on the landscape where it was once considered extirpated. In areas 
surrounding the extant, larger metapopulations, habitat loss from 
urbanization and dam construction is not considered a threat to the 
species because of conservation strategies and land transfers 
implemented in Montana (USFS) and Washington (USDOD and the Service). 
Furthermore, known habitat in California is largely within USFS lands, 
including designated wilderness; thus, there is no significant threat 
of habitat loss from urbanization or dam construction in California.

Summary of Habitat-Based Threats

    Based on the final listing rule (59 FR 35860; July 14, 1994), the 
following stressors warranted consideration as possible current or 
future threats to water howellia: Invasive species, land management 
activities, trampling by domestic livestock, and direct habitat loss 
from urbanization or dam construction. However, as described below, 
these stressors have not occurred to the extent determined or 
anticipated at the time of listing in 1994, or the stressors are being 
adequately managed,

[[Page 31964]]

or the species is more tolerant of the stressor than was previously 
thought.
    <bullet> Land management plans and conservation management 
strategies have been adopted by Federal and State agencies to mitigate 
the effects of land management activities on water howellia and are in 
place for all three metapopulations. These plans vary in duration, but 
are longer term (15+ years) and are expected to continue to provide 
protections to water howellia habitat into the future because the plans 
(and all future revisions to the plans) are mandated by Federal laws to 
conserve fish, wildlife, and plant species. For a more in-depth 
discussion of land management plans and relevant Federal laws, see 
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms, below.
    <bullet> Suppression efforts directed at reed canarygrass have 
resulted in some success. Furthermore, water howellia occurrences are 
not currently being displaced by reed canarygrass, and the best 
available data do not indicate that they are being displaced by other 
invasive species.
    <bullet> The installation of riparian fencing and cattle barricades 
and the implementation of specific grazing routines have effectively 
mitigated the effects of trampling on water howellia.
    <bullet> The extant metapopulations, as well as most occurrences in 
California, are largely managed by Federal agencies that have 
conservation strategies in place. Therefore, neither urbanization nor 
dam construction is a threat to water howellia.
    <bullet> Limited information is available regarding the 37 
occurrences (12 percent of known occurrences) that occur on private 
property. Due to the low number of occurrences on private land relative 
to Federal and State land, impacts to water howellia on private lands 
are likely not significant at the species level.
    Therefore, based on the available information, we do not consider 
there to be any significant habitat-based threats for water howellia.

Overutilization of the Species

    Overutilization, for any purpose, was not considered a threat in 
the final rule to list water howellia (59 FR 35860; July 14, 1994). The 
best available information does not indicate any current use of water 
howellia for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational 
purposes. Regarding future utilization, interest has been expressed by 
the Valencia Wetland Mitigation Bank in Priest River, Idaho, to collect 
seed via soil plugs from vigorous water howellia occurrences for use in 
establishing new occurrences where appropriate habitat exists 
(Wiechmann 2014b, entire). Initially, a harvest of 5 to 7 soil plugs 
from other Idaho occurrences has been proposed. The proposed project 
would be beneficial if it created another occurrence of water howellia 
in northern Idaho or had educational value. Recent communications with 
Valencia Wetland Mitigation Bank indicate that they are still 
interested in pursuing this project (Collier 2020, pers. comm.). We are 
not aware of any other current or future plans for use of the species. 
Therefore, based on the available information, we find that there are 
no significant threats to water howellia related to overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.

Disease or Predation

    Predation (herbivory) on water howellia by domestic livestock was 
considered a threat in the final rule to list the species (59 FR 35860; 
July 14, 1994). As described in more detail above, grazing is limited 
within the species' habitat, and the occurrence of water howellia in 
ponds accessible to livestock in the Swan Valley metapopulation has not 
been affected (Pipp 2017, p. 17). As a result, we conclude that 
predation does not affect the species throughout its range at the 
population or species level. The best available information does not 
indicate that levels of livestock grazing will increase within known 
occurrences of water howellia in the future. The best available 
information also does not indicate any issues or potential stressors 
regarding disease or insect predation. Therefore, based on the 
available information, we do not consider there to be any significant 
threats to water howellia from disease or predation.

Other Factors Affecting the Species

    In this section, we discuss: (1) The narrow ecological requirements 
of the species in the context of climate change, (2) small population 
size/low genetic diversity, and (3) the potential for cumulative 
effects of stressors.
Narrow Ecological Requirements/Climate Change
    Here, we consider the narrow ecological requirements of water 
howellia in the context of observed or projected changes in climate. 
The July 14, 1994, listing rule (59 FR 35860) did not discuss the 
potential impacts of climate change on water howellia. The terms 
``climate'' and ``climate change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The term ``climate'' refers to the mean 
and variability of relevant quantities (i.e., temperature, 
precipitation, wind) over time (IPCC 2014, pp. 119-120). The term 
``climate change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or variability 
of one or more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) 
that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, 
whether the change is due to internal processes or anthropogenic 
changes (IPCC 2014, p. 120).
    Global climate projections are informative, and in some cases, the 
only or the best scientific information available for us to use. 
However, projected changes in climate and related impacts can vary 
substantially across and within different regions of the world (e.g., 
IPCC 2013c, 2014, entire) and within the United States (Melillo et al. 
2014, entire). Therefore, we use ``downscaled'' projections when they 
are available and have been developed through appropriate scientific 
procedures, because such projections provide higher resolution 
information that is more relevant to spatial scales used for analyses 
of a given species (see Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58-61, for a discussion 
of downscaling).
    Climate change trends predicted for the Pacific Northwest (Oregon, 
Washington, Idaho, and Montana) broadly consist of an increase in 
annual average temperature; an increase in extreme precipitation 
events; and, with less certainty, variability in annual precipitation 
(Dalton et al. 2013, pp. 31-38, Figure 1.1; Snover et al. 2013, pp. 5-
1-5-4). Lee et al. (2015) describe potential hydrological changes in 
response to predicted climate change on montane wetlands in the Pacific 
Northwest. These observations appear to vary with local conditions and 
include earlier drawdown, more rapid drying out in the summer, and 
reduced minimum water levels.
    Yearly weather patterns influence abundance of water howellia. 
Abundance of water howellia is typically lower if the preceding season 
had higher precipitation and/or cooler summer temperatures (Shelly et 
al. 2016, entire). This decrease is likely due to limited pond drying, 
which negatively affects seed germination rates due to their need for 
air exposure to germinate. Conversely, abundance of water howellia is 
typically higher if the preceding season had lower precipitation and/or 
hotter summer temperatures (Shelly et al. 2016, entire), due to more 
pond drying and increased rates of seed germination.
    There is uncertainty regarding how the predicted trends in 
precipitation and air temperature due to climate

[[Page 31965]]

change in the Pacific Northwest will influence water howellia. In 
western Montana, where all the known statewide occurrences of water 
howellia occur, regional climate data predict (1) increasing average 
annual air temperatures and (2) precipitation increasing in winter, 
spring, and fall and decreasing in summer (Montana 2017, pp. 40-63). 
These predicted conditions are similar to those observed to increase 
water howellia abundance (e.g., increased pond drying with annual 
recharge in the winter, spring) in Montana historically. Thus, future 
climate conditions may be favorable, on average, for water howellia. In 
Washington, predicted increases in air temperature and more rapid 
drying of montane wetlands could be favorable to water howellia, 
assuming adequate recharge in the winter and spring (Shelly et al. 
2016, entire). The effects of predicted increased variability in 
precipitation on water howellia remains unclear. A potential increase 
in precipitation as a result of climate change may affect the species 
in several ways. First, increases in precipitation may increase the 
surface area of existing ponds and wetlands, or create new ones. These 
new habitats would be available for colonization by water howellia and 
could increase the range and resiliency of the species. However, new 
habitats would also be available to invasive species such as reed 
canarygrass and may also promote their expansion on the landscape. An 
important factor in increased habitat would likely be the site-specific 
conditions within each habitat; new habitat with deeper water and 
longer periods of inundation would likely preclude the establishment of 
reed canarygrass and be beneficial to water howellia. Conversely, the 
creation of shallower habitat may favor reed canarygrass. Another 
possible effect of increased precipitation may be the alteration of the 
hydrologic cycle of water howellia habitats. Specifically, these 
habitats may fill earlier (with heavier spring rainfall) and dry later 
in the season than they did historically, thereby reducing the timing 
window for air exposure needed for seed germination of water howellia 
in late summer and autumn.
    Alternatively, a potential decrease in precipitation as a result of 
climate change also may affect water howellia in several ways. 
Decreases in precipitation may result in water levels that are too low 
to support the submergent flower production. Additionally, earlier 
drawdowns and the faster receding of water in these wetlands as a 
result of decreased precipitation may ultimately limit the continued 
persistence of ephemeral ponds. This could provide an opportunity for 
expansion of reed canarygrass and other invasive species. On the other 
hand, amplified drying may allow for increased germination and 
expansion of water howellia. Another scenario with decreased 
precipitation is that the hydrological cycles could be altered in a way 
that would favor water howellia. Ponds that were previously perennial 
could potentially become ephemeral in nature, providing the wetting and 
drying cycle necessary for water howellia reproduction and, 
consequently, additional habitat for the species to occupy. Again, the 
site-specific conditions for each habitat would be an important factor.
    Changes in precipitation from snow to rain may also affect water 
howellia, particularly in the southernmost occurrences (e.g., 
California) (California DWR 2013, p. 22). More precipitation falling as 
rain rather than snow would likely alter the hydrologic cycle within 
these habitats. These alterations could include faster drying of 
wetlands than was observed historically, due to a lack of spring run-
off from snow fields and increased annual air temperature. More 
frequent extreme precipitation events are predicted for California 
(California DWR 2013, p. 23). The effect of more extreme precipitation 
events on water howellia habitat in California is unclear, especially 
given the potential for interactions among precipitation and other 
environmental variables predicted to change (e.g., reduced snowpack, 
increased annual air temperature).
    The ability of water howellia to self-fertilize and produce seeds 
at both the early season submergent and later season emergent forms may 
be an advantage to surviving lengthened, shortened, or generally more 
inconsistent growing seasons than occurred historically. Seed 
production from both flower forms in one growing season may increase 
the opportunity for surviving subsequent inclement years. It is 
uncertain how increases in water temperature and increased evaporation 
due to increased ambient temperatures would affect growth and 
reproduction of water howellia; however, climate conditions that 
restrict the dual seed production and seed banking could reduce the 
ability of water howellia to sustain populations over time.
    Associated wetland vegetation that positively contributes to 
suitable microclimates for water howellia could be altered by predicted 
variance in temperatures and precipitation; the effects of which are 
uncertain. Occurrences of water howellia in Montana and eastern 
Washington could be more resilient to these processes than other 
occurrences because of their distribution over a larger landscape with 
many separate occurrences. Increasing temperatures combined with 
increased demand for ground and surface water for human development may 
compound negative impacts to water howellia in eastern Washington and 
northern Idaho. Climate-induced effects on water howellia may appear 
first in California, as these occurrences are at the southern edge of 
the known range. However, these effects may be buffered by the higher 
elevation (approximately 3,800 ft (1,158 m)) at which the California 
occurrences are found compared to elsewhere in the range (western 
Washington: approximately 15 ft (5 m)).
    Predicted environmental changes resulting from climate change may 
have both positive and negative effects on water howellia, depending on 
the extent and type of impact and depending on site-specific conditions 
within each habitat type (Lee et al. 2015, p. 14). The primary 
predicted negative effect is the alteration of hydrologic regimes (Lee 
et al. 2015, p. 14) potentially resulting in inconsistent growing 
seasons. This effect will likely be buffered by the ability of water 
howellia to produce seeds during both early and late seasons. Predicted 
environmental effects that may be positive for water howellia include 
increased habitat, seed dispersal, and species distribution in some 
areas, including within the three metapopulations due to predicted 
increases in precipitation across the northern range of the species 
(IPCC 2014, p. 61). The intact nature and current spatial arrangement 
(geographically diverse and at varying elevations) of the three large 
metapopulations will likely provide more resilience to climate change 
than the smaller, isolated occurrences. Effects of potential 
composition shifts in vegetation surrounding water howellia occurrences 
as a result of climate change are unknown.
    In summary, climate change is affecting and will continue to affect 
temperature and precipitation events. The extent, duration, and impact 
of those changes are unknown, but could potentially increase or 
decrease precipitation in some areas. Water howellia may experience 
climate change-related effects in the future, most likely at the 
individual or local population level. Regional occurrences may 
experience some shifts. However, it is anticipated that the 
metapopulations important to the viability of the species would 
continue to be viable because of resiliency due to geographic and

[[Page 31966]]

elevational diversity rangewide and because some of the future 
predicted air temperature and precipitation conditions are similar to 
the yearly weather conditions that promote larger abundances of water 
howellia (lower precipitation and/or hotter summer temperatures). 
Available information indicates that increased variability in future 
climate conditions is likely, but that water howellia has some 
plasticity to environmental change as evidenced by the species' 
viability despite a changing climate and its life-history strategy of 
dual seed production and longer-term seed viability to buffer against 
several consecutive years of unfavorable environmental conditions. 
Therefore, based upon the best available information, we conclude that 
climate change is not a significant threat to water howellia.
Small Population Size and Low Genetic Diversity
    The final rule to list water howellia (59 FR 35860; July 14, 1994) 
cited small population size (i.e., limited extent of occupied habitat) 
as a contributor to its vulnerability. Species that occupy limited 
amounts of habitat often have reduced viability because they may lack 
resiliency to recover from stochastic events. Water howellia currently 
occupies about 400 acres of habitat rangewide, comprised of 307 
occurrences with most occurrences occupying less than 1 acre. While 
most of the occurrences of water howellia are small in areal extent, 
the arrangement of occupied habitat across 5 States is advantageous to 
water howellia because increased redundancy and representation increase 
the capacity of water howellia to survive a catastrophic event. 
Stochastic events still may affect individual occurrences, but the 
widespread arrangement of the occurrences increases redundancy and 
representation. Further, long-term monitoring has shown that water 
howellia are more tolerant of natural stochasticity or manmade 
disturbance in buffer areas surrounding occupied ponds than previously 
thought (Pipp 2017, p. 6). In addition, the documentation of 200 
additional occurrences of water howellia since 1994 has increased the 
redundancy and representation of habitats for water howellia rangewide. 
This increased redundancy and representation of habitats increases the 
viability of water howellia, relative to 1994, because of an increased 
buffer against stochastic and catastrophic events.
    The final rule to list water howellia (59 FR 35860; July 14, 1994) 
cited lack of genetic variation within and among occurrences as a 
contributor to its vulnerability. Low genetic diversity could limit a 
species' or population's ability to respond to novel changes in its 
environment, necessitating redundancy of occurrences across larger 
areas to increase the probability of survival. At the time of listing 
in 1994, the only genetic investigation of the species showed very low 
genetic diversity within and among occurrences in Washington and 
Montana (Lesica et al. 1988, p. 278). More current genetic results 
indicate greater genetic diversity within and among occurrences than 
previously thought; however, diversity is still relatively low 
(Brunsfeld and Baldwin 1998, p. 2; Schierenbeck and Phipps 2010, p. 5). 
Another genetic investigation documented that all occurrences are 
distantly related and that gene flow is likely occurring between the 
States (Schierenbeck and Phipps 2010, p. 6). However, it is also 
possible that these results indicate that infrequent, long-distance 
dispersal events (likely facilitated by waterfowl) do occur, but actual 
gene flow is not occurring or rarely occurring.
    The effects of low genetic diversity of water howellia on 
adaptability to future climate conditions are unknown. Water howellia 
is a self-pollinating species; thus, genetic diversity is expected to 
be lower, in general, than that for cross-pollinating species (Hamrick 
and Godt 1996, entire). Water howellia populations have remained stable 
despite rapidly changing air temperatures since the late 1990s (Snover 
et al. 2013, p. ES-3); however, it is unknown whether future air 
temperature trajectories will remain similar to those observed from the 
late 1990s to present. Another consideration is the time scale on which 
genetic diversity operates. For example, there has been considerable 
debate about what effective population size is adequate to conserve 
genetic diversity and long-term adaptive potential (see Jamieson and 
Allendorf 2012 for review, p. 579). However, loss of genetic diversity 
is typically not an immediate threat even in isolated populations 
(Palstra and Ruzzante 2008, p. 3441), but rather is a symptom of 
deterministic processes acting on the population (Jamieson and 
Allendorf 2012, p. 580). In other words, loss of genetic diversity 
typically does not drive species to extinction (Jamieson and Allendorf 
2012, entire); other processes, such as habitat degradation, have a 
more immediate and greater impact on species viability (Jamieson and 
Allendorf 2012). We acknowledge the documented low genetic diversity of 
water howellia; however, the best available information indicates that 
the potential effects from low genetic diversity on water howellia's 
viability would not occur within the foreseeable future. In addition, 
the redundancy of smaller occurrences across the species' range may 
help mitigate for reduced genetic plasticity within individual 
occurrences because unfavorable environmental conditions affecting one 
or several occurrences may not affect other occurrences in different 
parts of the range. The current spatial arrangement of multiple 
occurrences spread across 5 States is favorable to the species' long-
term viability because these occurrences are at different elevations 
and within varying climatic regimes rangewide (see discussion under 
``Narrow Ecological Requirements/Climate Change,'' above). Thus, we do 
not consider small population size or low genetic diversity to be a 
significant threat to water howellia.
Cumulative Effects of All Stressors
    Many of the stressors faced by water howellia are interrelated and 
could work in concert with each other, resulting in a cumulative 
adverse effect on the species. For example, stressors discussed under 
Factor A that individually do not rise to the level of a threat could 
together result in habitat loss. Similarly, small population size in 
combination with stressors discussed under Factor A could present a 
potential concern.
    Climate change is occurring across the range of the species, 
coinciding with all other identified stressors. As described 
previously, variations in climatic conditions may favor or preclude 
invasive species, depending on site-specific habitat factors. Also 
described previously, climate change may alter hydrological cycles. 
However, despite changing climate conditions, water howellia has 
sustained populations across its range. Analysis of long-term datasets 
and observations indicate the species has maintained viability even 
with climate change interacting with other potential stressors (Gilbert 
2017, pers. comm.; Rule 2017, pers. comm.; Pipp 2017, entire; Rule 
2020, in progress). This indicates that water howellia has some 
capacity to survive and reproduce, despite potential cumulative effects 
of climate change and other stressors to date. Nevertheless, we 
recognize that there are uncertainties associated with future climate 
change predictions and potential cumulative effects. Ongoing management 
and monitoring of water howellia (via the post-delisting

[[Page 31967]]

monitoring plan) is designed to detect potential future changes in the 
species' distribution and abundance.
    There may be locations of water howellia occurrences where invasive 
species are present, and cattle have access to occupied ponds. Grazing 
may limit the expansion of invasive species in these instances. 
Otherwise, we are not aware of particular locations within water 
howellia occurrences where multiple stressors occur. Also, we do not 
anticipate stressors to increase on federally managed lands, which 
afford protection to the species in most of the occupied habitat. 
Furthermore, the documented new occurrences and greater distribution of 
the species since it was listed in 1994 provide additional resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation across the range of the species, which 
is expected to increase the viability of the species in the face of 
cumulative threats. Therefore, we conclude, based on the available 
information, that cumulative effects are not a significant threat to 
water howellia.

Summary of Other Factors Affecting the Species

    Given the lack of threats within water howellia occurrences and 
increases in the species' known distribution since listing in 1994, we 
conclude that climate change, small population size and low genetic 
diversity, and cumulative effects are not significant threats to water 
howellia.

Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    We examined the stressors identified within the other factors as 
ameliorated or exacerbated by any existing regulatory mechanisms or 
conservation efforts for water howellia. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act 
requires the Service to take into account those efforts, if any, being 
made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a 
State or foreign nation, to protect endangered or threatened species. 
We consider relevant Federal, State, and Tribal laws, regulations, and 
other such binding legal mechanisms that may ameliorate or exacerbate 
any of the threats we describe in the threats analysis or otherwise 
enhance the conservation of the species. We give the strongest weight 
to statutes and their implementing regulations and to management 
direction that stems from those laws and regulations; an example is 
State governmental actions enforced under a State statute or 
constitution or Federal action under the statute.
    For currently listed species, we consider the adequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms to address threats to the species absent the 
protections of the Act. Therefore, we examine whether other regulatory 
mechanisms would remain in place if the species were delisted, and the 
extent to which those mechanisms will continue to help ensure that 
future threats will be reduced or eliminated.
    In our previous discussion of threats, we evaluate the significance 
of threats as mitigated by any conservation efforts and existing 
regulatory mechanisms. Where threats exist, we analyze the extent to 
which conservation measures and existing regulatory mechanisms address 
the specific threats to the species. Regulatory mechanisms, if they 
exist, may reduce or eliminate the impacts from one or more identified 
threats.
    Although inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms was not 
specifically identified as a threat to water howellia at the time of 
listing in 1994, we did mention the very limited number of protections 
that existed for the species (59 FR 35860, July 14, 1994, see p. 59 FR 
35862). Specifically, we discussed the designation of water howellia as 
a sensitive species by the USFS and referred to wetland protection 
measures provided under section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (33 
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 
U.S.C. 3801 et seq.), and some State laws.
Federal
    Clean Water Act: The Clean Water Act (CWA) was designed, in part, 
to protect surface waters of the United States from unregulated 
pollution from point sources. The CWA provides some benefit to water 
howellia through the regulation of discharge into surface waters 
through a permitting process; however, the historical threats to water 
howellia habitat have not typically been associated with point sources 
of pollution, and current information does not point to these as 
threats for occurrences today.
    Under section 404 of the CWA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
(USACE) regulates the discharge of fill material into waters of the 
United States, including wetlands. In general, the term ``wetland'' 
refers to areas meeting the USACE's criteria of hydric soils, hydrology 
(either sufficient annual flooding or water on the soil surface), and 
hydrophytic vegetation (plants specifically adapted for growing in 
wetlands). Some habitat occupied by water howellia is considered 
isolated waters under the CWA. As a result of various Supreme Court 
decisions, the CWA's jurisdiction over isolated waters has been 
uncertain and generally determined case-by-case. Further, Federal 
agencies are currently considering removing isolated waters from CWA 
jurisdiction (82 FR 34899; July 27, 2017). Thus, the extent of water 
howellia receiving the protections of the CWA now and in the future is 
uncertain. However, the protections of the CWA to water howellia 
habitat that is under CWA jurisdiction are expected to remain when the 
species is delisted and the protections of the Act removed.
    Food Security Act: The Food Security Act was designed, in part, to 
protect wetlands by removing incentives for farmers to convert wetlands 
into crop fields. The Food Security Act likely provides some indirect 
protection of potential water howellia habitats on private land, but 
not those on Federal or State land. Although there are no data directly 
linking the Food Security Act and water howellia, historically, it has 
been demonstrated that the Food Security Act has had positive impacts 
on wetland function (Gleason et al. 2011, p. S65). Although the future 
of the Food Security Act in its current form is uncertain, any 
protections afforded to wetlands would confer benefit to water howellia 
should the species be present.
    National Environmental Policy Act: Environmental review of 
potential effects of Federal actions is mandated under the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). When NEPA 
analysis reveals significant environmental effects, the Federal 
agencies must disclose those effects to the public and consider 
mitigation that could offset the effects. These mitigations usually 
provide some protections for listed species. However, the NEPA does not 
require that adverse impacts be mitigated, only disclosed. Therefore, 
because NEPA is procedural, it does not independently provide 
protection for the species.
    National Forest Management Act: Federal activities on USFS lands 
are subject to the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA; 16 
U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). The NFMA requires the development and 
implementation of resource management plans that guide the maintenance 
of ecological conditions that support natural distributions and 
abundance of species and not contribute to their extirpation.
    In 2018, the Flathead National Forest in Montana revised its 
resource management plan (often called a forest plan), and the 
Mendocino National Forest in California anticipates revising their 
forest plan in the near future. The revised Flathead National Forest 
plan includes measures for conservation of the known water howellia 
occurrences on USFS land in Montana by

[[Page 31968]]

incorporating the existing USFS conservation strategy for water 
howellia into the revised forest plan (USFS 2018, pp. 20, 45-46, 52, 
99-100, 143-144; Shelly 2019, pers. comm.; USFS 1997, pp. 17-18). The 
inclusion of the conservation strategy into the revised forest plan is 
important, because in addition to providing conservation measures for 
known water howellia occurrences, it also provides for conservation of 
ponds that are suitable habitat but are currently unoccupied. Guidance 
provided in the Mendocino National Forest plan has resulted in the use 
of buffer strips to protect riparian species and function surrounding 
ponds occupied by water howellia in California. Both the Flathead 
National Forest plan and Mendocino National Forest plan are expected to 
continue to be implemented when water howellia is delisted, based on 
discussions with the USFS (see Conservation Efforts and Habitat-based 
Threats, above) and the fact that these plans are longer term (15+ 
years; NFMA, 16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) forest planning documents. 
Further, NFMA requires forest plans to provide protection for streams, 
stream banks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other bodies of water 
from detrimental changes in water temperatures, blockages of water 
courses, and deposits of sediment, where tree harvests are likely to 
seriously and adversely affect water conditions or fish habitat. Thus, 
any future revisions to the Flathead National Forest or Mendocino 
National Forest plans would still provide some protections to water 
howellia and its habitat.
    Water howellia is given consideration as a Federal species at risk 
by Federal agencies under the 2012 National Forest System land 
management planning rule (77 FR 21162; April 9, 2012). When delisted, 
water howellia will be evaluated for designation as a species of 
special concern and designated as such if there is substantial concern 
for its viability in the plan area. The USFS anticipates that water 
howellia will be given the status of ``species of conservation 
concern'' in both plans when the species is delisted (Shelly 2016, 
pers. comm.; Johnson 2017, pers. comm.). If water howellia is not given 
the status of ``species of conservation concern'' upon delisting, the 
2012 planning rule still requires any forest plan to provide for the 
diversity of plant and animal communities and the long-term persistence 
of native species in the plan area. Further, the planning rule also 
requires a forest plan to provide ecological conditions to keep common 
native species common, contribute to the recovery of endangered and 
threatened species, conserve candidate species and species proposed for 
listing, and maintain viable populations of species of conservation 
concern within the plan area. Thus, any future revisions to the 
Flathead National Forest or Mendocino National Forest plans will 
provide some protections to water howellia and its habitat.
    Federal Land Policy and Management Act: Similar to NFMA, the 
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) 
applies to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) with regard to the 
conservation and use of public lands under their management. Water 
howellia is given consideration as a federally listed species by 
Federal agencies, and when delisted, will likely be included on the 
sensitive species list for the BLM as it was at the time of listing (59 
FR 35860; July 14, 1994). Special status species policies (BLM manual, 
section 6840, p. 37) detail the need to conserve these species and the 
ecosystems on which they depend using all methods and procedures which 
are necessary to improve the condition of special status species and 
their habitats to a point where their special status recognition is no 
longer warranted. The one occurrence of water howellia in Washington on 
BLM land is vulnerable to localized actions. However, application of 
best management practices (BMPs) consistent with resource management 
plan (RMP) direction appears to have maintained this occurrence since 
1993 (Frymire 2017, pers. comm.). The implementation of BMPs is 
expected to continue in the absence of protections under the Act.
    Sikes Act: Water howellia occurrences and habitats on Federal 
military installations (JBLM in Pierce County, Washington) are managed 
under an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) (USDOD 
2006, pp. 4-6) authorized by the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a et seq.). 
Protections for water howellia habitat in the INRMP include 
restrictions on motorized equipment and military training activities in 
wetlands occupied by water howellia. In concert with the INRMP, JBLM 
has developed an Endangered Species Management Plan for water howellia 
that establishes conservation goals, management prescriptions, and 
monitoring efforts (USDOD 2012, entire). These protections are expected 
to continue when the species is delisted because the Sikes Act mandates 
USDOD to conserve and rehabilitate wildlife, fish, and game on military 
reservations.
    National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act: As directed by the 
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Pub. L. 105-57, 16 
U.S.C. 668dd), Refuge managers have the authority and responsibility to 
protect native ecosystems, fulfill the purposes for which an individual 
refuge was founded, and implement strategies to achieve the goals and 
objectives stated in management plans. For example, Turnbull NWR 
(Spokane County, Washington) includes extensive habitat for water 
howellia, including 35 known occupied sites. The NWR's comprehensive 
conservation plan (CCP) is a land management plan with a 15-year term 
that directs protection of these habitats and identifies specific 
objectives relative to research and monitoring, invasive species 
management, and education regarding water howellia (USFWS 2007, p. 2-
22). Given the 15-year timeframe of CCPs, unless the CCPs are modified 
earlier, these protections will remain in place until at least 2022 
regardless of water howellia's Federal listing status. After 2022, the 
Turnbull NWR can revise the CCP, if needed. However, the likelihood of 
future CCP revisions including conservation of water howellia are high, 
because the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act mandates 
conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their habitats within 
the Refuge System. In addition, the overarching goal of the National 
Wildlife Refuge System is to manage their lands and waters for the 
conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats, 
further underscoring the high likelihood of future protections for 
water howellia and its habitat.
    In 2010, Ridgefield NWR in western Washington finalized a CCP that 
includes several conservation strategies for water howellia. These 
strategies include allowing natural flooding cycles and various methods 
(e.g., mechanical, biological, chemical) for invasive species control 
(USFWS 2010, pp. 2-37, 2-54). Given the 15-year timeframe of CCPs, 
protections outlined in the Ridgefield NWR CCP for water howellia are 
expected to remain in place until at least 2025, regardless of water 
howellia's Federal listing status. After 2025, the Ridgefield NWR can 
revise the CCP, if needed. However, the likelihood of future CCP 
revisions including conservation of water howellia are high, because 
the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act mandates 
conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their habitats within 
the Refuge System. In addition, the overarching goal of the National 
Wildlife Refuge System is to manage

[[Page 31969]]

their lands and waters for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and 
plant resources and their habitats, further underscoring the high 
likelihood of future protections for water howellia and its habitat.
State
    Montana Streamside Management Zone Act: The Montana Streamside 
Management Zone Act (SMZ), in part, designates vegetated buffer strips 
around surface waters, including wetlands adjacent to streams (and thus 
potential water howellia habitat), within the boundaries of timber 
harvest units in Montana. The SMZ law covers Federal, State, and 
private commercial timber practices (Montana Code Annotated 2019, title 
77, chapter 5, part 3). The SMZ law specifically prohibits slash fill 
of wetlands, off-road vehicle use, and clear cutting within 50 ft (15 
m) of water bodies (Montana Code Annotated 2019, title 77, chapter 5, 
part 3, at 77-5-303). There are no buffer strips designated for 
isolated wetlands (those not adjacent to a stream/river) under the SMZ 
and only voluntary restrictions on equipment travel through isolated 
wetlands. Although unclear, some water howellia occurrences in 
Montana's Swan Valley may occur in isolated wetlands. Thus, the direct 
loss of habitat or plants for a small number of occurrences from timber 
harvest activities is a possibility if water howellia plants occupy 
isolated wetlands within a timber harvest unit. However, audits of 
timber sale practices conducted by interdisciplinary review teams have 
consistently documented few violations of the SMZ law and generally 
high (greater than 90 percent) compliance with voluntary regulations in 
the recent past (Montana DNRC 2016, entire). Thus, while there is 
potential for water howellia habitat to be lost for occurrences in 
isolated wetlands, the magnitude of the stressor appears small. As 
State law, the protections of the SMZ are expected to continue when we 
delist water howellia.
    Washington Natural Heritage Plan: Washington State's Natural 
Heritage Plan identifies priorities for preserving natural diversity, 
including wetlands, in Washington State (Washington Department of 
Natural Resources (DNR) 2007, 2011, entire). The plan aids Washington 
DNR in conserving key habitats that are currently imperiled or expected 
to be in the future. The prioritization of conservation efforts 
provided by this plan is expected to remain in place when we delist 
water howellia.
    Washington Forest Practices Act: Washington State's Forest 
Practices Act, and associated regulations and rules (Revised Code of 
Washington, title 76, chapter 76.09; Washington Administrative Code, 
title 222, chapter 222-08), provides protection of wetlands from the 
fill and cutting that could result from commercial timber harvest 
operations. Minimum buffers of 25 ft (8 m) are designated around ponds 
and wetlands inside timber sale boundaries, effectively prohibiting 
most harvest and all heavy equipment used in these areas. These buffers 
protect water howellia habitat from disturbance and minimize impacts to 
water quality. As State law, these protections are expected to remain 
in place when we delist water howellia.
    Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS), Chapter 564: ORS 564 requires non-
Federal public agencies to protect State-listed plant species found on 
their lands. Any land action on Oregon non-Federal public lands which 
results, or might result, in the taking of an endangered or threatened 
species requires consultation with the Oregon Department of Agriculture 
(ODA) staff. Removal of Federal protections for water howellia will 
remove State protection of the species under this statute because water 
howellia was never formally listed by ODA. However, protections are 
expected to remain in place due to other rare, sensitive plant species 
in the area inhabited by water howellia and the commitment of the Metro 
(Portland-area regional government) to protect the only known 
occurrences of water howellia in Oregon (Currin 2013, pers. comm.).

Summary of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    As discussed above and under the other factors, conservation 
measures and existing regulatory mechanisms (such as Federal and State 
land management plans and conservation strategies) have ameliorated, or 
are continuing to minimize, the previously identified threats of 
invasive species, land management activities (primarily timber harvest 
and road building), trampling by domestic livestock, and direct habitat 
loss from urbanization or dam construction to all three water howellia 
metapopulations. As indicated above, the majority of these mechanisms 
will remain in place regardless of the species' Federal listing status. 
In Montana, the existing conservation strategy for water howellia is 
now part of the Flathead National Forest Plan; thus, the Montana 
metapopulation will continue to receive protections regardless of its 
status under the Act. In Washington on National Wildlife Refuges, there 
is a high likelihood that any future CCP revisions will include 
protections for water howellia because the mission of the National 
Wildlife Refuge System is to manage their lands specifically for 
conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats; 
thus, water howellia and its habitat on Refuge land are expected to be 
conserved into the future. In Washington on JBLM, an Endangered Species 
Management Plan specifically speaks to the management of wetlands to 
benefit water howellia, and the Sikes Act mandates wetland protection, 
enhancement, and restoration, where necessary for the support of fish, 
wildlife, or plants, regardless of the species' status under the Act. 
Thus, all three metapopulations are protected by regulatory mechanisms 
that have been shown to be effective and are expected to continue to be 
effective regardless of the species' status under the Act. 
Consequently, we find that conservation measures, along with existing 
regulatory mechanisms, are adequate to address these specific 
stressors.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on October 
7, 2019 (84 FR 53380), we requested that all interested parties submit 
written comments on our proposal to delist water howellia by December 
6, 2019. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, 
scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and 
invited them to comment on the proposal. Newspaper notices inviting 
general public comment were published in California (Times Standard in 
Eureka and Mendocino Beacon in Fort Bragg), Montana (Missoulian in 
Missoula and Interlake in Kalispell), Oregon (Oregonian in Portland), 
and Washington (News Tribune in Tacoma and Spokesman Review in 
Spokane). We did not receive any requests for a public hearing. All 
substantive information provided during the comment period was either 
incorporated directly into this final rule or is addressed below.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review policy published 
on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 2016, memorandum 
updating and clarifying the role of peer review of listing actions 
under the Act (USFWS 2016, entire), we solicited expert opinion from 
nine knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise and 
familiarity with water howellia, its habitat, its taxonomy, its 
biological needs and potential threats, or

[[Page 31970]]

principles of conservation biology. We received responses from three 
peer reviewers.
    We reviewed and addressed all comments we received from the peer 
reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the 
proposed delisting of water howellia. The peer reviewers provided 
additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the 
final rule. All changes suggested by peer reviewers are incorporated 
into the text of this final rule. Such changes include additional 
details and/or clarity concerning population monitoring vs. surveying, 
predicted effects of invasive species, regulatory mechanisms, climate 
change, wetland/pond hydrology, genetic diversity, cumulative effects, 
post-delisting monitoring, and metapopulation structure. We also made 
other minor editorial clarifications and corrections in this final rule 
based on peer reviewer comments.

Public Comments

    We received six letters from the public that provided comments on 
the proposed rule. Most of these commenters either generally supported 
or generally opposed the delisting of the species without providing 
further information.
    One commenter opposed our use of 2013 data to support our proposed 
delisting action; this commenter argues that these data are outdated. 
We have incorporated updated sources of information (118 instances of 
using data more recent than 2013), where applicable, in this rule and 
have not relied solely on data from 2013 (32 instances of using data 
from 2013, where appropriate). In accordance with section 4(b)(1)(a) of 
the Act, we use the ``best scientific and commercial information 
available,'' regardless of its date, to inform our determinations under 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act.
    Another commenter provided substantive comments, mainly related to 
the occurrences of water howellia in California. We incorporated the 
updated information provided by this public commenter into this final 
rule.

Determination of Water Howellia's Status

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or 
``threatened species.'' The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a 
species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range,'' and a ``threatened species'' as a 
species that is ``likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' The Act requires that we determine whether a species meets the 
definition of ``endangered species'' or ``threatened species'' because 
of any of the following factors: (A) The present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence.

Status Throughout All of Its Range

    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to water howellia, including invasive species (Factor A), land 
management activities (Factor A), trampling by domestic livestock 
(Factor A), direct habitat loss from urbanization or dam construction 
(Factor A), predation (herbivory) by domestic livestock (Factor C), 
narrow ecological requirements of the species in the context of climate 
change (Factor E), small population size/low genetic variation (Factor 
E), and cumulative effects of stressors (Factor E). Based on the best 
available information, and as described in our threats analysis, above, 
the identified stressors fall into one or more of the following 
categories:
    <bullet> Stressors that have not occurred to the extent anticipated 
at the time of listing and existing information indicates that this 
will not change in the future (trampling by domestic livestock, 
predation (herbivory), direct habitat loss from urbanization or dam 
construction).
    <bullet> Stressors that are adequately managed and existing 
information indicates that this will not change in the future (invasive 
species, land management activities).
    <bullet> Stressors for which the species is tolerant and existing 
information indicates that this will not change in the future (narrow 
ecological requirements of the species in the context of climate 
change, small population size/low genetic variation, cumulative 
effects).
    Thus, our analysis of this information indicates that these 
stressors are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to 
indicate that water howellia is in danger of extinction or likely to 
become so within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. 
Therefore, after assessing the best available information, we determine 
that water howellia is not in danger of extinction throughout all of 
its range nor is it likely to become so in the foreseeable future 
throughout all of its range.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. Having determined that water howellia is not in danger of 
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout 
all of its range, we now consider whether it may be in danger of 
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in a 
significant portion of its range--that is, whether there is any portion 
of the species' range for which it is true that both (1) the portion is 
significant; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction now or 
likely to become so in the foreseeable future in that portion. 
Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for us to address the 
``significance'' question or the ``status'' question first. We can 
choose to address either question first. Regardless of which question 
we address first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to the 
first question that we address, we do not need to evaluate the other 
question for that portion of the species' range.
    In undertaking this analysis for water howellia, we choose to 
address the status question first--we consider information pertaining 
to the geographic distribution of both the species and the threats that 
the species faces to identify any portions of the range where the 
species may be endangered or threatened.
    For water howellia, we considered whether the threats are 
geographically concentrated in any portion of the species' range at a 
biologically meaningful scale. We examined the following threats:
    <bullet> Invasive species--Invasive species, particularly reed 
canarygrass, are widely scattered throughout the species' range, with 
no concentration in any particular area. Furthermore, water howellia 
metapopulations appear to be able to coexist with invasive species even 
in the absence of suppression efforts.
    <bullet> Land management activities--On Federal lands (where 84 
percent of water howellia occurrences are), most land management 
activities that could disturb vegetation surrounding water howellia are 
now either prohibited or designed to minimize impacts. On State lands, 
clear-cutting of timber and broadcast burning are either prohibited 
within defined buffers or not identified

[[Page 31971]]

as threats. Therefore, adverse practices on Federal and State lands are 
very infrequent and are not concentrated in any particular area of the 
species' range.
    <bullet> Trampling by domestic livestock--Effects of trampling on 
water howellia occurrences on Federal and State land have largely been 
mitigated with fencing, cattle barricades, elimination of grazing in 
some areas occupied by water howellia, or limitations on the duration 
of time livestock have access to sensitive pond and wetland habitats. 
Therefore, effects from trampling on Federal and State lands are very 
infrequent and are not concentrated in any particular area of the 
species' range.
    <bullet> Direct habitat loss from urbanization or dam construction-
-Further habitat loss from urbanization and dam construction is no 
longer a threat to the species because conservation strategies and 
increased Federal ownership now provide additional protections. 
Consequently, direct habitat loss from these activities is minimal and 
is not concentrated in any particular area of the species' range.
    <bullet> Predation (herbivory) by domestic livestock--Similar to 
trampling, the effects from grazing are limited within water howellia 
habitat, and the species has maintained viability in ponds accessible 
to livestock. Therefore, its effects on Federal and State lands and are 
not concentrated in any particular area of the species' range.
    <bullet> Narrow ecological requirements of the species in the 
context of climate change--Metapopulations important to the viability 
of the species are expected to sustain occurrences because of 
resiliency due to geographic and elevational diversity rangewide. Some 
of the future predicted air temperature and precipitation conditions 
are similar to the yearly weather conditions that promote larger 
abundances of water howellia (lower precipitation and/or hotter summer 
temperatures). Available information indicates that increased 
variability in future climate conditions is likely, but water howellia 
has some plasticity to environmental change as evidenced by its 
viability despite a changing climate and its life-history strategy of 
dual seed production and longer-term seed viability to buffer against 
several consecutive years of unfavorable environmental conditions. 
Therefore, despite occurring throughout the species' range, the 
potential effects are minimal and are not concentrated in any 
particular area of the species' range.
    <bullet> Small population size/low genetic variation--Most 
occurrences of water howellia are small in areal extent; however, the 
arrangement of occupied habitat across five States increases 
redundancy, representation, and the capacity to survive a catastrophic 
event. In addition, the documentation of 200 additional occurrences of 
water howellia since 1994 has increased the redundancy and 
representation of habitats for water howellia rangewide. Small 
populations are not concentrated in any particular area of the species' 
range.
    <bullet> Cumulative effects--Analysis of long-term datasets 
indicates the species has maintained viability and has the capacity to 
survive and reproduce, despite potential cumulative effects of climate 
change and other stressors. Potential cumulative effects are not 
concentrated in any particular area of the species' range.
    We found no concentration of threats in any portion of the water 
howellia's range at a biologically meaningful scale. Therefore, no 
portion of the species' range can provide a basis for determining that 
the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in 
the foreseeable future in a significant portion of its range, and we 
find that the species is not in danger of extinction now or likely to 
become so in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. This 
is consistent with the court's holding in Desert Survivors v. 
Department of the Interior, No. 16-cv-01165-JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. 
Cal. Aug. 24, 2018) and Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 
F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017).

Determination of Status

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that water howellia does not meet the definition 
of an endangered species or a threatened species in accordance with 
sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we are removing water 
howellia from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.

Effects of This Rule

    This rule revises 50 CFR 17.12(h) to remove water howellia from the 
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. Because no critical 
habitat was ever designated for this species, this rule does not affect 
50 CFR 17.96.
    The prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act, 
particularly through sections 7 and 9, will no longer apply to this 
species. Federal agencies will no longer be required to consult with 
the Service under section 7 of the Act in the event that activities 
they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect water howellia.

Post-Delisting Monitoring

    Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the 
States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for 
all species that have been delisted due to recovery. The purpose of 
this requirement is to develop a program that detects the failure of 
any delisted species to sustain itself without the protective measures 
provided by the Act. If at any time during the monitoring period, data 
indicate that protective status under the Act should be reinstated, we 
can initiate listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency 
listing.
    We are delisting water howellia based on new information we have 
received as well as conservation actions taken. Since delisting is, in 
part, due to conservation taken by stakeholders, we have prepared a 
post-delisting monitoring (PDM) plan for water howellia. The PDM plan 
was drafted collaboratively with stakeholders and was reviewed by both 
peer and public reviewers during the comment period for the proposed 
delisting rule (84 FR 53380; October 7, 2019). The PDM plan discusses 
the current status of the taxon and describes the methods for 
monitoring the taxon. The PDM plan: (1) Summarizes the status of water 
howellia at the time of delisting; (2) describes frequency and duration 
of monitoring; (3) discusses monitoring methods and sampling regimes; 
(4) defines what potential triggers will be evaluated to address the 
need for additional monitoring; (5) outlines reporting requirements and 
procedures; (6) outlines a schedule for implementing the PDM plan; and 
(7) defines responsibilities. It is our intent to work with our 
partners towards maintaining the recovered status of water howellia. 
The PDM plan is available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov 
at Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2018-0045.

Required Determinations

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be 
prepared in connection with regulations pursuant to section 4(a) of the 
Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination 
in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

[[Page 31972]]

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to Tribes. We are aware of two water howellia 
occurrences that occur on Tribal lands; we have notified the Tribes 
that may be affected by this rule and offered government-to-government 
consultation.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this rule is available 
on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-
2018-0045, or upon request from the Montana Ecological Services Field 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The authors of this final rule are staff members of the Montana 
Ecological Services Field Office and field and regional offices in 
California, Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless 
otherwise noted.


Sec.  17.12   [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.12(h) by removing the entry for ``Howellia 
aquatilis'' under FLOWERING PLANTS from the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Plants.

Martha Williams,
Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the 
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-12522 Filed 6-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P