Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31955 

regulations to substitute channel 22 for 

channel 7 at Hannibal. 

DATES: Effective June 16, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at (202) 

418–1647 or JoyceBernstein@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

proposed rule was published at 86 FR 

16686 on March 31, 2021. The Licensee 

filed comments in support of the 

petition reaffirming its commitment to 

apply for channel 22. No other 

comments were filed. The Licensee 

states that VHF channels have certain 

propagation characteristics which may 

cause reception issues for some viewers 

and that the reception of VHF signals 

requires larger antennas generally not 

well suited to the mobile applications 

expected under flexible use, relative to 

UHF channels. In addition, KHQA–TV 

has received numerous complaints from 

viewers unable to receive the Station’s 

over-the-air signal, despite being able to 

receive signals from other stations. 

Moreover, there would be no loss of 

service because the noise limited 

contour of the proposed channel 22 

facility completely encompasses the 

licensed channel 7 facility’s noise 

limited contour. 

This is a synopsis of the 

Commission’s Report and Order, MB 

Docket No. 21–71; RM–11887; DA 21– 

601, adopted May 21, 2021, and 

released May 21, 2021. The full text of 

this document is available for download 

at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs. To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

This document does not contain 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

therefore, it does not contain any 

proposed information collection burden 

‘‘for small business concerns with fewer 

than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601– 

612, do not apply to this proceeding. 

The Commission will send a copy of 

this Report and Order in a report to be 

sent to Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A). 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Television. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

India Malcolm, 

Assistant Bureau Chief for Management. 

Final Rule 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as 

follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 

307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339. 

■ 2. In § 73.622(i), amend the PostTransition Table of DTV Allotments, 

under Missouri, by revising the entry for 

Hannibal to read as follows: 

§ 73.622 Digital television table of 

allotments. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

Community Channel No. 

* * * * * 

MISSOURI 

* * * * * 

Hannibal ................................ 22 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–12049 Filed 6–15–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
31956 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 selffertilizing. 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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

State Number of 

occurrences 

Percent of 

total known 

occurrences 

Montana ................................................................................................................................................................... 220 72 

Idaho ........................................................................................................................................................................ 7 2 

Washington .............................................................................................................................................................. 72 23 

Oregon ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2 <1 

California .................................................................................................................................................................. 7 2 

Total .................................................................................................................................................................. 308 ........................

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
31958 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULESER16JN21.001</GPH>

A 

• 

... ---

.. 

Figure of historical and extant occurrences of water howellia across the species' 

known range. 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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

Geographic area 

Minimum 

number of 

occurrences 

identified 

in draft 

recovery plan 

Current 

number of 

occurrences 

covered by 

management 

plans 

(percent of total 

occurrences) 

Years 

management 

plans in place 

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 longterm 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, largescale 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 postdelisting 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. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
31960 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 speciesspecific 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
31962 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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, clearcutting 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
31964 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

or the species is more tolerant of the 

stressor than was previously thought. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 selffertilize 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
31966 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 crosspollinating 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 sitespecific 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
31968 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 longterm 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 nonFederal public agencies to protect Statelisted plant species found on their 

lands. Any land action on Oregon nonFederal 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
31970 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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: 

• 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). 

• Stressors that are adequately 

managed and existing information 

indicates that this will not change in the 

future (invasive species, land 

management activities). 

• 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: 

• 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. 

• 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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). 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
31972 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

■ 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. 

§ 17.12 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 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 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0073; 

FF09E22000 FXES1113090FEDR 212] 

RIN 1018–BB83 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Removal of Lepanthes 

eltoroensis From the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, are removing 

Lepanthes eltoroensis (no common 

name), an orchid species from Puerto 

Rico, from the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants, due 

to recovery. This determination is based 

on a thorough review of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, which indicates that the 

threats to the species have been 

eliminated or reduced to the point that 

the species no longer meets the 

definition of an endangered or 

threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). Accordingly, the 

prohibitions and conservation measures 

provided by the Act will no longer 

apply to this species. 

DATES: This rule is effective July 16, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: The proposed and final 

rules, the post-delisting monitoring 

plan, and the comments received on the 

proposed rule are available on the 

internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

in Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0073. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edwin Mun ̃iz, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Caribbean 

Ecological Services Field Office (see 

ADDRESSES, above). If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), please call the Federal Relay 

Service at (800) 877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, a species may be delisted (i.e., 

removed from the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants (Lists)) if it is determined 

that the species has recovered and no 

longer meets the definition of an 

endangered or threatened species. 

Removing a species from the Lists can 

only be completed by issuing a rule. 

What this document does. This rule 

removes Lepanthes eltoroensis from the 

Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants, based on its 

recovery. 

The basis for our action. We may 

delist a species if we determine, after a 

review of the best scientific and 

commercial data, that: (1) The species is 

extinct; (2) the species does not meet the 

definition of an endangered species or a 

threatened species; or (3) the listed 

entity does not meet the statutory 

definition of a species (50 CFR 

424.11(e)). Here, we have determined 

that the species may be delisted because 

it no longer meets the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species, as it has recovered. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On March 10, 2020, we published in 

the Federal Register (85 FR 13844) a 

proposed rule to remove Lepanthes 

eltoroensis (no common name) from the 

Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants (List). Please refer to 

that proposed rule for a detailed 

description of previous Federal actions 

concerning this species. The proposed 

rule and supplemental documents are 

provided at http://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019– 

0073. 

Species Status Assessment Report 

A team of Service biologists, in 

consultation with other species experts, 

prepared a species status assessment 

(SSA) report for Lepanthes eltoroensis. 

The SSA report represents a 

compilation of the best scientific and 

commercial data available concerning 

the status of the species, including the 

impacts of past, present, and future 

factors (both negative and beneficial) 

affecting the species. We solicited 

independent peer review of the SSA 

report by five individuals with expertise 

in L. eltoroensis or similar epiphytic 

(i.e., a plant that grows on another plant 

for support but not for food) orchid 

species’ biology or habitat, or climate 

change. The final SSA, which supports 

this final rule, was revised, as 

appropriate, in response to the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES