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

Authority: Secs. 4, 303, 307(e), 309, and notification process that must be DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 332, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 completed before filing certain antenna U.S.C. 154, 303, 307(e), 309, and 332, unless structure registration applications. Fish and Wildlife Service otherwise noted. Interpret or apply 48 Stat. * * * * * 1064–1068, 1081–1105, as amended; 47 50 CFR Part 17 U.S.C. 151–155, 301–609; 3 UST 3450, 3 UST 4726, 12 UST 2377. PART 90—PRIVATE LAND MOBILE [Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2011–0016; MO 19. Section 80.3 is amended by RADIO SERVICES 92210–0–0008–B2] revising paragraphs (b) and (e) to read 22. The authority citation for part 90 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife as follows: continues to read as follows: and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Bearmouth § 80.3 Other applicable rule parts of this Authority: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), chapter. Mountainsnail, Byrne Resort and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of * * * * * Mountainsnail, and Meltwater Lednian 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, Stonefly as Endangered or Threatened (b) Part 1. This part includes rules of 303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7). practice and procedure for license AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, applications, adjudicatory proceedings, 23. Section 90.5 is amended by Interior. procedures for reconsideration and revising paragraphs (b) and (f) to read as ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition review of the Commission’s actions; follows: finding. provisions concerning violation notices and forfeiture proceedings; and the § 90.5 Other applicable rule parts. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and environmental processing requirements * * * * * Wildlife Service (Service), announce a that, together with the procedures (b) Part 1 includes rules of practice 12-month finding on a petition to list specified in § 17.4(c) of this chapter, if and procedure for the filing of the Bearmouth mountainsnail applicable, must be complied with prior applications for stations to operate in (Oreohelix species 3), Byrne Resort to the initiation of construction. Subpart the Wireless Telecommunications mountainsnail (Oreohelix species 31), Q of part 1 contains rules governing Services, adjudicatory proceedings and meltwater lednian stonefly (Lednia competitive bidding procedures for including hearing proceedings, and rule tumana) as endangered or threatened, resolving mutually exclusive making proceedings; procedures for and to designate critical habitat under applications for certain initial licenses. reconsideration and review of the the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as * * * * * Commission’s actions; provisions amended (Act). After review of all (e) Part 17. This part contains concerning violation notices and available scientific and commercial requirements for the construction, forfeiture proceedings; and the information, we find that listing the marking and lighting of antenna towers, environmental processing requirements Bearmouth mountainsnail and the and the environmental notification that, together with the procedures Byrne Resort mountainsnail is not process that must be completed before specified in § 17.4(c) of this chapter, if warranted because neither constitutes a valid taxon; therefore, they are not filing certain antenna structure applicable, must be complied with prior considered to be listable entities under registration applications. to initiating construction. the Act. We find that listing of the * * * * * * * * * * meltwater lednian stonefly is warranted. PART 87—AVIATION SERVICES (f) Part 17 contains requirements for However, currently listing of the construction, marking and lighting of meltwater lednian stonefly is precluded 20. The authority citation for part 87 antenna towers, and the environmental by higher priority actions to amend the continues to read as follows: notification process that must be Lists of Endangered and Threatened Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, and 307(e), completed before filing certain antenna Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication unless otherwise noted. structure registration applications. of this 12-month petition finding, we 21. Section 87.3 is amended by * * * * * will add the meltwater lednian stonefly to our candidate species list. We will revising paragraphs (b) and (e) to read 24. Section 90.129 is amended by as follows: develop a proposed rule to list the revising paragraph (g) to read as follows: meltwater lednian stonefly as our § 87.3 Other applicable rule parts. § 90.129 Supplemental information to be priorities allow. We will make any * * * * * routinely submitted with applications. determination on critical habitat during development of the proposed listing (b) Part 1 contains rules of practice * * * * * and procedure for license applications, rule. During any interim period, we will adjudicatory proceedings, rule making (g) The environmental assessment address the status of the candidate taxon proceedings, procedures for required by §§ 1.1307 and 1.1311 of this through our annual Candidate Notice of reconsideration and review of the chapter, if applicable. If an application Review (CNOR). Commission’s actions; provisions filed under this part proposes the use of DATES: The finding announced in this concerning violation notices and one or more new or existing antenna document was made on April 5, 2011. forfeiture proceedings; and the structures that require registration under ADDRESSES: This finding is available on environmental processing requirements part 17 of this chapter, any required the Internet at http:// that, together with the procedures environmental assessment should be www.regulations.gov at Docket Number specified in § 17.4(c) of this chapter, if submitted pursuant to the process set FWS–R6–ES–2011–0016. Supporting applicable, must be complied with prior forth in § 17.4(c) of this chapter rather documentation we used in preparing to the initiation of construction. than with the application filed under this finding is available for public * * * * * this part. inspection, by appointment, during (e) Part 17 contains requirements for * * * * * normal business hours at the U.S. Fish construction, marking and lighting of [FR Doc. 2011–7785 Filed 4–4–11; 8:45 am] and Wildlife Service, Montana Field antenna towers, and the environmental BILLING CODE 6712–01–P Office, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, MT

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:08 Apr 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 18685

59601. Please submit any new preliminary review, we found no Byrne Resort mountainsnail, and information, materials, comments, or compelling evidence to support an meltwater lednian stonefly as questions concerning this finding to the emergency listing for any of the species endangered or threatened. above street address. covered by the petition, and that we Species Information for Bearmouth planned work on the petition in Fiscal FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mountainsnail and Byrne Resort Year (FY) 2008. Mark Wilson, Field Supervisor, Mountainsnail Montana Field Office (see ADDRESSES); On March 19, 2008, WildEarth by telephone at 406–449–5225; or by Guardians filed a complaint (1:08–CV– Species Descriptions 472–CKK) indicating that the Service facsimile at 406–449–5339. Persons who Bearmouth mountainsnail and Byrne failed to comply with its statutory duty use a telecommunications device for the Resort mountainsnail are ascribed to the to make 90-day findings on their two deaf (TDD) may call the Federal genus Oreohelix, commonly called the multiple species petitions in two of the Information Relay Service (FIRS) at ‘‘mountainsnail.’’ This genus of land 800–877–8339. Service’s administrative regions—one for the mountain-prairie region, and one snails is endemic to western North SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: for the Southwest region (WildEarth America and is found in mountainous environments in the western United Background Guardians v. Kempthorne 2008, case 1:08–CV–472–CKK). We subsequently States from the eastern Sierra Nevadas Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 published two initial 90-day findings on in the west to the Black Hills in the east, U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for January 6, 2009 (74 FR 419), and and from southern Canada down to any petition containing substantial February 5, 2009 (74 FR 6122), northern Mexico (Pilsbry 1916, pp. 341– scientific or commercial information identifying species for which we were 342; Pilsbry 1939, pp. 415–416; Weaver indicating that listing the species may then making negative 90-day findings, 2006, p. 9). be warranted, we make a finding within and species for which we were still Biology and Life History 12 months of the date of receipt of the working on a determination. The Most mountainsnail species are petition. In this finding, we determine Bearmouth mountainsnail, Byrne Resort that the petitioned action is: (a) Not mountainsnail, and meltwater lednian relatively large land snails (adult body warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) stonefly were not addressed in either size greater than 5 centimeters (cm) (2 warranted, but immediate proposal of a 90-day finding published in 2009, as we inches (in.)) that typically prefer regulation implementing the petitioned were still conducting our analyses of forested environments, calcium-rich action is precluded by other pending these mountainsnails and the stonefly. areas, and generally high available water proposals to determine whether species On March 13, 2009, the Service and content during generally dry conditions are endangered or threatened, and WildEarth Guardians filed a stipulated in spring and summer months (Weaver expeditious progress is being made to settlement in the U.S. District Court, 2006, p. 9). They survive colder add or remove qualified species from District of Columbia, agreeing that the conditions at higher elevations by the Federal Lists of Endangered and Service would submit to the Federal burrowing underground and aestivating Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section Register a finding as to whether (Weaver 2006, p. 9). Individuals often 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we WildEarth Guardians’ petition presented also burrow during hot summer months, treat a petition for which the requested substantial information indicating that appearing on the surface to feed during action is found to be warranted but the petitioned action may be warranted or after rains (Frest and Johannes 1995, precluded as though resubmitted on the for 38 mountain-prairie region species p. 22; Weaver 2006, p. 9). One date of such finding, that is, requiring a by August 9, 2009 (WildEarth Guardians adaptation by Oreohelix to arid and subsequent finding to be made within v. Salazar 2009, case 1:08–CV–472– semi-arid environments is the practice 12 months. We must publish these 12- CKK). of hatching eggs internally instead of the month findings in the Federal Register. On August 18, 2009, we published a typical pattern of laying them in favorable locations, as desiccation of Previous Federal Actions 90-day finding for 38 mountain-prairie region species (74 FR 41649). In that eggs and juveniles is a common cause of Federal action for the Bearmouth finding, we found that the petition land snail death, especially in arid areas mountainsnail, Byrne Resort presented substantial information to (Frest and Johannes 1995, p. 18). mountainsnail, and meltwater lednian indicate that listing of Bearmouth Hatching the eggs internally can reduce stonefly began on July 30, 2007, after we mountainsnail and Byrne Resort the probability of desiccation, and received a petition dated July 24, 2007, mountainsnail may be warranted due to adults seem to be able to delay release from Forest Guardians (now WildEarth the present or threatened destruction, of juveniles if conditions warrant (Frest Guardians) requesting that the Service: modification, or curtailment of their and Johannes 1995, p. 18). (1) Consider all full species in our habitat or range resulting from road Western land snails are typically mountain-prairie region ranked as G1 or construction and associated activities. herbivores, but some may consume G1G2 by the organization NatureServe, We also found that listing of the animal matter (Frest and Johannes 1995, except those that are currently listed, meltwater lednian stonefly may be p. 24). Land snails contribute proposed for listing, or candidates for warranted based on threats from climate substantially to nutrient recycling, often listing; and (2) list each species as either change, and specifically the melting of breaking down plant detritus and endangered or threatened (Forest glaciers associated with the species’ animal waste (Frest and Johannes 1995, Guardians 2007, pp. 1–37). The petition habitat. The finding also requested pp. 24–25). They are preyed upon incorporated all analyses, references, further information pertaining to all extensively by small mammals (e.g., and documentation provided by three ‘‘species’’ (74 FR 41649). However, shrews and voles), reptiles, amphibians, NatureServe in its online database at the 90-day finding did not formally birds, and insects (Frest and Johannes http://www.natureserve.org/. We consider the taxonomic status of the 1995, p. 25). acknowledged the receipt of the petition petitioned entities. The life history of western land snails in a letter to the Forest Guardians, dated This notice constitutes the 12-month is strongly controlled by climate. Some August 24, 2007 (Slack 2007, p. 1). In finding on the July 24, 2007, petition to species of Oreohelix are among the most that letter we stated, based on list the Bearmouth mountainsnail, long-lived land snails, reaching sexual

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:08 Apr 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 18686 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

maturity at about 2 to 3 years and living Fork River valley in the area between the old Byrne Resort area.’’ As with the as long as 8 to 10 years (Frest and Clinton and Garrison, Granite and Bearmouth mountainsnail, Frest and Johannes 1995, p. 25). Mountainsnails Powell counties, Montana,’’ and they Johannes did not provide any accurate have low adult vagility (ability to move described the present distribution (in spatial information about the actual or disperse) (Chak 2007, p. 23) and 1995) as ‘‘a few very small colonies in location of these colonies. No apparently lack a larval stage with high the Bearmouth area.’’ They did not occurrences of Byrne Resort dispersal ability (Weaver 2006, pp. 8–9). provide any spatial information about mountainsnail were reported in more Consequently, mountainsnails typically the actual location of these colonies. recent surveys of terrestrial mollusks exist in small, circumscribed colonies They further speculated that Bearmouth conducted by the MNHP (Hendricks with dozens to a few thousand mountainsnail may occur in the 2003, entire; Hendricks et al. 2008, individuals (Frest and Johannes 1995, adjacent lands managed by the U.S. entire). More recently, neither the pp. 22–23). Oreohelix snails are known Forest Service (Lolo National Forest) MNHP nor Dr. Weaver (University of La to be hermaphroditic (individuals have and the State of Montana. Little Verne) have been able to locate a colony both male and female genitalia and can information about the Bearmouth of Oreohelix in the area that Frest and assume either role in mating) (Pisbry mountainsnail has become available Johannes (1995, p. 14) reported the 1939, p. 427; Hendricks 2003, pp.17, 25) since the report by Frest and Johannes Byrne Resort mountainsnail (Hendricks and viviparous (give birth to live young) (1995, p. 115). No occurrences of 2010, pers. comm.; Weaver 2010b, pers. (Pilsbry 1916, p. 343; Pilsbry 1939, p. Bearmouth mountainsnail were reported comm.). It is not known whether the 418). in more recent surveys of terrestrial colonies no longer exist, or if the Oreohelix species and subspecies vary mollusks conducted by the Montana original description of Byrne Resort in size, height of shell spire, degree of Natural Heritage Program (MNHP) mountainsnail is incorrect. carination (i.e., presence and size of a (Hendricks 2003, entire; Hendricks et al. Habitat keel or ridge around the outside whorl 2008, entire). of the shell), width of umbilicus (i.e., The only potential recent occurrences Factors determining habitat the ventral opening formed in the center of Bearmouth mountainsnail come from preferences of land snails include cover, of the whorls), and color (Pilsbry 1939, surveys conducted by Dr. Kathleen effective moisture availability, and p. 415). Shell morphology is plastic Weaver, an assistant professor at the geologic history (Frest and Johannes (variable in response to environmental University of La Verne, California, who 1995, p. 20). Most land snail species conditions) in Oreohelix, and in snails recently began conducting research on including those in the genus Oreohelix in general and can be affected by the distribution, ecology, and genetics of are calciphiles, meaning they are elevation, calcium content, humidity, Oreohelix in Montana. Dr. Weaver usually restricted to limestone, and population density (Chak 2007, p. reports collecting land snail specimens dolomite, or other substrates containing 3). Substantial variation in shell from two colonies she believes may be high levels of the element calcium morphology within a particular Bearmouth mountainsnails (Weaver (Pilsbry 1916, p. 342; Frest and Oreohelix colony is common (Pilsbry 2010a, 2010b, pers. comm.). The first Johannes 1995, pp. 20–21). Moist soil 1916, p. 340; 1939, p. 415). Conversely, colony is located in the Bearmouth area, conditions are favored and soil pH may shell characteristics can be similar in and Dr. Weaver believes it is near the be a factor in determining suitable taxa with different evolutionary type locality ‘‘Bearmouth’’ location along habitat (Frest and Johannes 1995, pp. histories but that occupy similar the Clark Fork River described in Frest 20–24). Oreohelix are generally environments (Chak 2007, p. 3). This and Johannes (1995, p. 5; see above). associated with talus (a sloping mass of variation within species and colonies, The second colony is located along Rock loose rock debris at the base of a cliff) combined with parallelism that can Creek, a left-bank tributary to the Clark or rocky outcrops, and the occupied occur between unrelated groups, has Fork River. The two colonies are sites may range from low-elevation long been recognized as a challenge to believed to represent the same species canyons and valley bottoms to high- correctly identifying Oreohelix based on genetic similarity measured elevation slopes well above the treeline specimens and determining their using mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA, (Hendricks 2003, pp. 4–5). distribution (Pilsbry 1916, p. 340). maternally-inherited DNA found in Taxonomy and Evaluation of the cellular organelles called mitochondria) Distribution and Abundance Listable Entities for Bearmouth (Weaver 2010b, pers. comm.). Dr. The distribution and abundance of Mountainsnail and Byrne Resort Weaver refers to the two colonies as Mountainsnail Bearmouth mountainsnail and Byrne ‘‘Bearmouth mountainsnail’’ based on Resort mountainsnail are not well the location of the first colony (Weaver The genus Oreohelix belongs to known. In general, very little is known 2010b, pers. comm.). Both colonies are phylum Mollusca, class Gastropoda, about the distribution and status of very small (no more than 5 to 15 square order Stylommatophora (terrestrial terrestrial mollusks in Montana (e.g., meters or about 17 to 50 square feet), snails and slugs), and family Hendricks 2003, pp. 3–4). The 2007 and may contain from a few dozen to a Oreohelicidae. The genus Oreohelix petition from WildEarth Guardians and few hundred individuals (Weaver consists of 41 recognized species the NatureServe rankings for both 2010b, pers. comm.). (Turgeon et al. 1998, p. 143; Integrated Bearmouth mountainsnail and Byrne No information is available on the Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) Resort mountainsnail (e.g., NatureServe current abundance or distribution of 2010). Overall, the taxonomy of the 2010a, b) rely entirely on information Byrne Resort mountainsnail, or whether genus is not well known (Chak 2007, p. contained in the unpublished report by the ‘‘species’’ even exists. The original 21; Weaver 2006, p. 9), and additional Frest and Johannes (1995, entire) that distribution of the Byrne Resort species have been proposed in the summarized occurrence and mountainsnail was described by Frest primary literature (e.g., Ports 2004, conservation status of mollusks in the and Johannes (1995, p. 140) as ‘‘the entire), in graduate theses (e.g., Weaver Interior Columbia Basin. Clark Fork River valley near Bearmouth, 2006, pp. 49–95), and in grey literature Frest and Johannes (1995, p. 5) stated Granite County, MT,’’ and they reports (e.g., Frest and Johannes 1995, that the original distribution of described the present distribution (in pp. 113–140). The most extreme Bearmouth mountainsnail is the ‘‘Clark 1995) as ‘‘a few very small colonies in example of purported additional

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:08 Apr 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 18687

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:08 Apr 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 18688 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

thorough description of the type Species Information for the Meltwater while there is some preliminary specimen, an evaluation of various lines Lednian Stonefly indication that the taxonomy of the of evidence (morphological, ecological, genus Lednia will be revised when the Species Description and Taxonomy biogeographical, genetic) relevant to its new specimens are officially described, taxonomic status, resolution of any The meltwater lednian stonefly the meltwater lednian stonefly remains discrepancies in taxonomic (Lednia tumana) is in the monotypic the only species in the genus Lednia nomenclature, or a combination of these genus Lednia (Baumann 1975, p. 19; that is currently recognized by the (e.g., Weaver 2006, pp. 49–65), and that Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 263; Stark scientific community. Consequently, the taxon be accepted as valid by et al. 2009, entire). The genus Lednia based on the information presented widely-recognized sources (e.g., belongs to the phylum Arthropoda, class above, the Service considers Lednia to Turgeon et al. 1998, entire; ITIS 2010). Insecta, order Plecoptera (stoneflies), be a monotypic genus. Therefore, for the family Nemouridae, and subfamily purpose of this finding, we are Finding for the Bearmouth Nemourinae. The family Nemouridae is evaluating the meltwater lednian Mountainsnail (Oreohelix sp. 3) and the largest in the order Plecoptera stonefly, throughout its known range, as Byrne Resort Mountainsnail (Oreohelix (stoneflies), comprising more than 370 a full species in a monotypic genus. sp. 31) species in 17 genera (Baumann 1975, p. The nymph (aquatic juvenile stage) of We have very little information on the 1). In North America, family the meltwater lednian stonefly is dark distribution and abundance of these two Nemouridae comprises 73 species in 13 red-brown on its dorsal (top) surface land snails. In fact, we could not find genera (Stark et al. 2009, entire). The and pink on the ventral (lower) surface, any information on occurrence or even type specimens for the meltwater with light grey-green legs (Baumann and the existence of the species referred to lednian stonefly were collected in the Stewart 1980, p. 658). Mature nymphs as the ‘‘Byrne Resort mountainsnail’’ by Many Glaciers area of Glacier National can range in size from 4.5 to 6.5 Frest and Johannes (1995, p. 139). We Park (Glacier NP), Montana (Baumann millimeter (mm) (0.18 to 0.26 in.) 1982, pers. comm.). The species was have some information, based on recent (Baumann and Stewart 1980, p. 655). originally described by Ricker in 1952 surveys and genetic analyses, that two Adults also are small, ranging in size (Baumann 1975, p. 18), and is colonies of land snails tentatively from 4 to 6 mm (0.16 to 0.24 in.) recognized as a valid species by the identified by a species expert as (Baumann 1975, p. 19). scientific community (e.g., Baumann ‘‘Bearmouth mountainsnail’’ currently 1975, p. 18; Baumann et al. 1977, pp. 7, Biology and Life History exist in the vicinity of the Clark Fork 34; Newell et al. 2008, p. 181; Stark et Plecoptera (stoneflies) are primarily River valley, Montana (Weaver 2010a, al. 2009, entire). Consequently, we associated with clean, cool, running 2010b, pers. comm.). To our knowledge, conclude that the meltwater lednian waters (Stewart and Harper 1996, p. there has never been a systematic stonefly (Lednia tumana) is a valid 217). The Nemourids are usually the analysis of the validity of taxonomic species and, therefore, a listable entity dominant Plecoptera family in arrangements (i.e., subspecies or under section 3(16) of the Act. mountain-river ecosystems, both in species) that have been proposed for Kondratieff and Lechleitner (2002, pp. terms of total biomass and in numbers Oreohelix by Frest and Johannes (1995, 385, 391) reported that specimens of species present (Baumann 1975, p. 1). pp. 113–140). Moreover, neither the thought to be the meltwater lednian Eggs and larvae of all North American Bearmouth mountainsnail nor the Byrne stonefly were collected in Mount species of stoneflies, including the Resort mountainsnail has been formally Rainier National Park (Mount Rainier meltwater lednian stonefly, are aquatic described as a species, and neither is NP), Washington. They also cited a (Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 217). presently recognized as a species or personal communication with a species Nemourid stonefly larvae are typically subspecies by the scientific community expert (R.W. Baumann, Brigham Young herbivores or detritivores, and their (e.g., Pilsbry 1939, entire; Turgeon et al. University, Provo, UT) that similar feeding mode is generally that of a 1998, p. 143; ITIS 2010). specimens also are known from North shredder or collector-gatherer (Baumann Neither the Bearmouth mountainsnail Cascades National Park (North Cascades 1975, p. 1; Stewart and Harper 1996, pp. nor the Byrne Resort mountainsnail is NP), Washington, and a site in the 218, 262). We have no information on recognized as a species or subspecies, California Sierra Nevada (Kondratieff the longevity of the meltwater lednian and their taxonomic statuses are and Lechleitner 2002, pp. 388–389). stonefly, but in general stoneflies can currently uncertain. Consequently, the However, the specimens discovered in complete their life cycles within a single Service does not at this time consider Mount Rainier NP, North Cascades NP, year (univoltine) or in 2 to 3 years the Bearmouth mountainsnail or the and in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of (semivoltine) (Stewart and Harper 1996, Byrne Resort mountainsnail to be California are now believed to represent pp. 217–218). Adult meltwater lednian listable entities under section 3(16) of additional undescribed taxa stoneflies are thought to emerge and the Act (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)) because (presumably in the genus Lednia) that breed in August and September they do not belong to taxa currently await formal description (Baumann (Baumann and Stewart 1980, p. 658; recognized by the scientific community. 2010, pers. comm.; Kondratieff 2010, Giersch 2010b, pers. comm.; MNHP The Service encourages additional pers. comm.; Kondratieff et al. 2006, p. 2010a). scientific investigations that will resolve 463). If these specimens are described as the significant uncertainties concerning species in the genus Lednia, then the Distribution and Abundance the occurrence and taxonomy of genus Lednia would no longer be The current known distribution of the Oreohelix land snails. Because we have considered a monotypic genus. meltwater lednian stonefly is restricted concluded the Bearmouth However, the taxonomy of these to a handful of locations just to the east mountainsnail and the Byrne Resort additional specimens (from Mount and west of the Continental Divide mountainsnail are not listable entities, Rainier NP, North Cascades NP, and in within Glacier NP (Newell et al. 2008, we will not be further evaluating these the Sierra Nevada Mountains of p. 181; National Park Service (NPS) mountainsnails under section 4(a)(1) of California) has not been evaluated or 2009; see Table 1 below). Within the last the Act, and they will not be discussed accepted by the scientific community 13 years, the meltwater lednian stonefly further in this finding. (e.g., Stark et al. 2009, entire). Thus, has been observed in a total of 11

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:08 Apr 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 18689

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

TABLE 1—DOCUMENTED OCCURRENCES OF MELTWATER LEDNIAN STONEFLY (LEDNIA TUMANA) DURING THE LAST 13 YEARS. ALL OCCURRENCES ARE WITHIN GLACIER NP, MONTANA. INFORMATION PROVIDED BY NPS (2009) BASED ON DATA COLLECTED BY F. RICHARD HAUER (FLATHEAD LAKE BIOLOGICAL STATION, DIVISION OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA, POLSON) AND JOE GIERSCH (DRUNELLADESIGNS.COM, WEST GLACIER, MON- TANA)

Stream or drainage Year Elevation

East of the Continental Divide (Glacier County, Montana)

Baring Creek a ...... 1998 2,378 m (7,801 ft). 1999 2,173 m (7,129 ft). 2003 2,273 m (7,457 ft). 2009 2,024 m (6,640 ft). Lunch Creek ab ...... 1999 2,173 m (7,129 ft). 2003 2,273 m (7,457 ft). 2009 2,024 m (6,640 ft). Reynolds Creek ab ...... 1997 2,171 m (7,123 ft). 2,170 m (7,119 ft). 2,140 m (7,021 ft). 2,106 m (6,909 ft). 2,165 m (7,103 ft). 1998 2,169 m (7,116 ft). 2,068 m (6,785 ft). 2,099 m (6,886 ft). 2,165 m (7,103 ft). St. Mary River a ...... 1999 2,054 m (6,739 ft). Swiftcurrent Creek a ...... 2007 1,628 m (5,341 ft). Twin Lakes (St. Mary River) ...... 1998 2,265 m (7,431 ft).

West of the Continental Divide (Flathead County, Montana)

Ahern Creek ...... 1998 2,065 m (6,775 ft). Bear Creek ...... 2001 1,696 m (5,564 ft). Hidden Lake (Hidden Creek) ...... 1998 2,302 m (7,552 ft). Logan Creek ab ...... 1998 2,115 m (6,939 ft). 2,031 m (6,663 ft). Mineral Creek ...... 1997 2,017 m (6,617 ft) Collection Location Details a Stream directly associated with a named glacier within that watershed or an unnamed glacier present on a 7.5′ topographic map. b Multiple collections within a stream are itemized by year and elevation.

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:29 Apr 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 18690 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

streams inhabited by the meltwater Climate Change et al. 2005, entire; Isaak et al. 2010, lednian stonefly are presumed to have Climate is influenced primarily by entire; Kaushal et al. 2010, entire). For very low nutrient concentrations (low long-term patterns in air temperature ectothermic organisms like aquatic nitrogen and phosphorus), reflecting the and precipitation. The invertebrates, temperature sets basic nutrient content of the glacial or snow- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate constraints on species’ distribution and melt source (Hauer et al. 2007, pp. 107– Change (IPCC) has concluded that physiological performance (Fagre et al. 108). The daytime microhabitat climate warming is unequivocal, and is 1997, p. 763; Lowe and Hauer 1999, pp. preferences of meltwater lednian now evident from observed increases in 1637, 1640, 1642; Hauer et al. 2007, p. stonefly nymphs are the underside of global average air and ocean 110). Stream hydrology not only affects rocks or larger pieces of bark or wood temperatures, widespread melting of the structure of aquatic systems across (Baumann and Stewart 1980, p. 658). snow and ice, and rising global mean space and time, but influences the life sea level (IPCC 2007, pp. 30–31). history and phenology (timing of life- Summary of Information Pertaining to cycle events) of aquatic invertebrates Continued greenhouse gas emissions at the Five Factors for the Meltwater such as stoneflies (Stewart and Harper or above current rates are expected to Lednian Stonefly 1996, pp. 217–218). cause further warming (IPCC 2007, p. Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) Significant trends in water 30). The years from 1995 through 2006 and its implementing regulations (50 temperature and stream flow have been rank among the 12 warmest years in the CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding observed in the western United States instrumental record of global average species to the Federal Lists of (Stewart et al. 2005, entire; Kaushal et near-surface temperature since 1850 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife al. 2010, entire), and increased air (Independent Scientific Advisory Board and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the temperatures and changes in (ISAB) 2007, p. 7; IPCC 2007, p. 30). Act, a species may be determined to be precipitation are partially responsible. During the last century, mean annual air endangered or threatened based on any During the past 50 to 100 years in the temperature increased by approximately of the following five factors: ° ° western United States, the timing of (A) The present or threatened 0.6 C (1.1 F) (IPCC 2007, p. 30). runoff from snowmelt has shifted to destruction, modification, or Warming appears to have accelerated in occur 1 to 4 weeks earlier (Regonda et curtailment of its habitat or range; recent decades, as the linear warming al. 2005, p. 380; Stewart et al. 2005, pp. trend over the 50 years from 1956 to (B) Overutilization for commercial, ° ° 1136, 1141; Hamlet et al. 2007, p. 1468), recreational, scientific, or educational 2005 (average 0.13 C or 0.24 F per presumably as a result of increased purposes; decade) is nearly twice that for the 100 temperatures (Hamlet et al. 2007, p. (C) Disease or predation; years from 1906 to 2005 (IPCC 2007, p. 1468), increased frequency of melting (D) The inadequacy of existing 30). Climate change scenarios estimate (Mote et al. 2005, p. 45), and decreased regulatory mechanisms; or that the mean air temperature could snowpack (Mote et al. 2005, p. 41). ° ° (E) Other natural or manmade factors increase by over 3 C (5.4 F) by 2100 Trends in decreased water availability affecting its continued existence. (IPCC 2007, pp. 45–46). The IPCC also also are apparent across the Pacific In making this finding, information projects there will likely be regional Northwest. For example, Luce and pertaining to meltwater lednian stonefly increases in the frequency of hot Holden (2009, entire) found a tendency in relation to the five factors provided extremes, heat waves, and heavy toward more extreme droughts at 72 in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed precipitation, as well as greater warming percent of the stream flow gages they below. in high northern latitudes (IPCC 2007, examined across Idaho, Montana, In considering what factors might p. 46). Oregon, and Washington. constitute threats to a species, we must We recognize that there are scientific The western United States appears to look beyond the exposure of the species differences of opinion on many aspects be warming faster than the global to a factor to evaluate whether the of climate change, including the role of average. In the Pacific Northwest, species may respond to the factor in a natural variability in climate. In our regionally averaged temperatures have way that causes actual impacts to the analysis, we rely primarily on synthesis risen 0.8 °C (1.5 °F) over the last century species. If there is exposure to a factor documents (IPCC 2007, entire; ISAB and as much as 2 °C (4 °F) in some and the species responds negatively, the 2007, entire; Karl et al. 2009, entire) that areas. Since 1900, the mean annual air factor may be a threat and we attempt present the consensus view of a large temperature for Glacier NP and the to determine how significant a threat it number of experts on climate change surrounding region has increased 1.33 is. The threat is significant if it drives, from around the world. We find that °C, which is 1.8 times the global mean or contributes to, the risk of extinction these synthesis reports, as well as the increase (U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) of the species such that the species scientific papers used in, or resulting 2010, p. 1). Mean annual air warrants listing as endangered or from, those reports represent the best temperatures are projected to increase threatened as those terms are defined in available scientific information we can by another 1.5 to 5.5 °C (3 to 10 °F) over the Act. use to inform our decision. Where the next 100 years (Karl et al. 2009, p. possible, we use empirical data or 135). Warming also appears to be very Factor A. The Present or Threatened projections specific to Glacier NP and pronounced in alpine regions globally Destruction, Modification, or the surrounding area and focus on (e.g., Hall and Fagre 2003, p. 134 and Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range observed or expected effects on stream references therein). The known distribution of the systems, as this area includes the known For the purposes of this finding, we meltwater lednian stonefly is entirely distribution of the meltwater lednian consider the foreseeable future for within the boundaries of Glacier NP. stonefly. anticipated environmental changes such The ecosystems in most national parks Water temperature and hydrology as reductions in glacial meltwater and are considered to be comparatively (stream flow) influence many of the increases in stream temperatures to be pristine, and the Glacier NP is a basic physical and biological processes approximately 40 years based on two relatively unaltered landscape when in aquatic systems, and both are factors. First, various global climate compared to other areas of western sensitive to environmental changes that models (GCMs) and emissions scenarios North America (Fagre 2005, p. 2). result from climate change (e.g., Stewart give consistent predictions within that

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:08 Apr 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 18691

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:08 Apr 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 18692 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:08 Apr 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 18693

significantly reduce the occurrence of purposes to be a threat to the meltwater various project alternatives, any adverse populations and extent of suitable lednian stonefly. environmental effects which cannot be habitat for the meltwater lednian avoided, and any irreversible or Factor C. Disease or Predation stonefly in Glacier NP in the foreseeable irretrievable commitments of resources future. Nearly all known recent We are not aware of any diseases that involved (40 CFR 1502). The NEPA occurrences of the meltwater lednian affect the meltwater lednian stonefly. itself is a disclosure law, and does not stonefly are in close proximity to Therefore, we do not consider disease to require subsequent minimization or glaciers that are projected to disappear be a threat to the species now or in the mitigation measures by the Federal during the next 20 years. Consequently, foreseeable future. agency involved. Although the NPS may we expect that the environmental We presume that nymph and adult include conservation measures for changes resulting from climate change meltwater lednian stoneflies may meltwater lednian stonefly or any other will significantly alter the habitat of all occasionally be subject to predation by species as a result of the NEPA process, extant populations of the meltwater bird species such as the American any such measures are typically lednian stonefly, and we conclude that dipper (Cinclus mexicanus). The voluntary in nature and are not required the loss of glaciers represents a high- American dipper prefers to feed on by NEPA. intensity threat (i.e., one that results in aquatic invertebrates in fast-moving, National Park Service Organic Act dramatic changes to the species’ habitat clear, alpine streams (MNHP 2010b), and distribution) and that this threat is, and the species is native to Glacier NP. The NPS Organic Act of 1916 (16 and will continue to be, large in scope As such, predation by American dipper U.S.C. 1 et seq.), as amended, states that (most, if not all, known populations will on the meltwater lednian stonefly the NPS ‘‘shall promote and regulate the be affected) now and into the would represent a natural ecological use of the Federal areas known as foreseeable future. The significant interaction in the Glacier NP. We have national parks, monuments, and reduction in glacier size observed no evidence that the extent of such reservations * * * to conserve the during the past 40 years is evidence that predation, if it occurs, represents any scenery and the national and historic the environmental changes resulting population-level threat to the meltwater objects and the wild life therein and to from climate change also may represent lednian stonefly. Therefore, we do not provide for the enjoyment of the same a current threat to this species, but we consider predation to be a threat to the in such manner and by such means as do not have any information on trends species now or in the foreseeable future. will leave them unimpaired for the in the occurrence of meltwater lednian In summary, there is currently no enjoyment of future generations.’’ The stonefly populations or changes in scientific evidence to indicate that the current distribution of the meltwater densities of specific populations to meltwater lednian stonefly is affected by lednian stonefly is entirely within the confirm this. In addition, we anticipate any diseases, or that any avian boundaries of Glacier NP, so the NPS that effects of the environmental predation that occurs constitutes an Organic Act is presumed to be one changes resulting from climate change abnormal (above background-level) Federal law of particular relevance to on the species will become more predator-prey interaction likely to have the species. Although Glacier NP does pronounced, or that they will accelerate adverse population-wide effects. not have a management plan specific to in the foreseeable future, as glaciers Therefore, we do not find disease or the meltwater lednian stonefly, the melt and eventually disappear in predation to be threats to the meltwater habitats occupied by the species remain Glacier NP. In conclusion, we find that lednian stonefly now or in the relatively pristine and generally free the meltwater lednian stonefly is likely forseeable future. from direct human impacts from Glacier to become in danger of extinction in the NP visitors (see discussion under Factor Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing foreseeable future because of the A). We also note that the most Regulatory Mechanisms environmental changes resulting from accessible meltwater lednian collection climate change. The Act requires us to examine the sites in Logan Creek near the Logan Pass adequacy of existing regulatory Visitor Center and the Going-to-the-Sun Factor B. Overutilization for mechanisms with respect to those Road (so called ‘‘Jones Flat’’ at Oberlin Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or existing and foreseeable threats that Bend) are currently closed to public use Educational Purposes place the meltwater lednian stonefly in and entry to protect resident vegetation We are not aware of any threats danger of becoming either endangered under Glacier NP management involving the overutilization or or threatened. The currently regulations (NPS 2010, pp. J5, J24). We collection of the meltwater lednian documented distribution of the species believe that the NPS Organic Act stonefly (Lednia tumana) for any is within the boundaries of Glacier NP, provides adequate protection from the commercial, recreational, scientific, or which is under the jurisdiction of the species and its habitat being directly educational purposes at this time. We National Park Service (NPS). Thus, there destroyed or modified by most human are aware that specimens are are a number of Federal laws and activities, including visitor use and occasionally collected for scientific regulations that may be relevant. development. However, the NPS purposes to determine its distribution Organic Act does not address the National Environmental Policy Act and abundance (e.g., Baumann and primary threat to the species of habitat Stewart 1980, pp. 655, 658; NPS 2009); All Federal agencies are required to loss resulting from the environmental however, the species is observed to be adhere to the National Environmental changes due to climate change. relatively abundant in preferred habitats Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970 (42 U.S.C. Therefore, the Organic Act does not (e.g., NPS 2009). We have no 4321 et seq.) for projects they fund, constitute an adequate regulatory information that suggests past authorize, or carry out. The Council on mechanism for this threat. collections, current collections, or any Environmental Quality’s regulations for collections in the foreseeable future will implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500– Clean Air Act result in population-level effects to the 1518) state that, when preparing On December 15, 2009, the U.S. species. Consequently, we do not environmental impact statements, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) consider overutilization for commercial, agencies shall include a discussion on published in the Federal Register (74 recreational, scientific, or educational the environmental impacts of the FR 66496) a rule titled, ‘‘Endangerment

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:08 Apr 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 18694 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

and Cause or Contribute Findings for changes in meltwater lednian stonefly affecting the species’ continued Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) habitat that are likely to occur in the existence that present a current or of the Clean Air Act.’’ In this rule, the foreseeable future. Consequently, we potential threat in the foreseeable future EPA Administrator found that the conclude that existing regulatory to the meltwater lednian stonefly, but current and projected concentrations of mechanisms are not adequate to address we do consider the interaction of the the six long-lived and directly emitted the threat of habitat loss and species’ restricted range with the threat greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, modification resulting from the of habitat loss in the foreseeable future methane, nitrous oxide, environmental changes due to climate to be a threat to the species under this hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, change to the meltwater lednian factor. and sulfur hexafluoride—in the stonefly in the foreseeable future. atmosphere threaten the public health Finding for the Meltwater Lednian and welfare of current and future Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Stonefly Factors Affecting The Species’ generations; and that the combined As required by the Act, we considered Continued Existence emissions of these greenhouse gases the five factors in assessing whether the from new motor vehicles and new motor Restricted Range and Stochastic meltwater lednian stonefly is vehicle engines contribute to the (Random) Events endangered or threatened throughout all greenhouse gas pollution that threatens The meltwater lednian stonefly is or a significant portion of its range. We public health and welfare (74 FR currently considered to be a narrow carefully examined the best scientific 66496). In effect, the EPA has concluded endemic found only within Glacier NP. and commercial information available that the greenhouse gases linked to At present, the species’ restricted range regarding the past, present, and future climate change are pollutants, whose threats faced by the species. We emissions can now be subject to the makes the species vulnerable to extirpation by localized disturbances or reviewed the petition, information Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.; available in our files, other available see 74 FR 66496). However, specific environmental conditions, such as fire, flood, and drought. We have no published and unpublished regulations to limit greenhouse gas information, and we consulted with emissions were only proposed in 2010. information on the specific effects of any of these disturbances on the recognized experts and other Federal At present, we have no basis to and State agencies. conclude that implementation of the meltwater lednian stonefly, nor any The meltwater lednian stonefly is a Clean Air Act in the foreseeable future information on the ability of the species narrowly distributed endemic presently (40 years, based on global climate to recover from disturbance or disperse known to occur in a small number of projections) will substantially reduce to new habitats. However, in general, cold, snowmelt- or glacier-fed, high- the current rate of global climate change organisms of alpine stream segments alpine streams in Glacier NP, Montana. through regulation of greenhouse gas may be isolated by specific thermal or Our status review identified threats to emissions. Thus, we conclude that the habitat criteria that make transfer from the species related to Factors A, D, and Clean Air Act does not adequately one stream to another difficult despite E. In particular, under Factor A, the address the primary threat to the the physical connections that exist in meltwater lednian stonefly, namely the dendritic stream networks (e.g., Hauer et melting of glaciers in Glacier NP is anticipated loss of thermally and al. 2007, pp. 108–110). We presume that considered a threat to the species, now hydrologically suitable habitat as a the species’ restricted range does not and in the foreseeable future, because result of the melting of glaciers and constitute a threat in itself for the loss of glaciers is expected to alter the other environmental changes that result meltwater lednian stonefly, especially thermal and hydrologic regimes of high- from climate change in Glacier NP. as it occupies habitats that are generally alpine streams occupied by the species. considered pristine and that should be Higher water temperatures, seasonal or Summary of Factor D comparatively resistant and resilient to permanent stream dewatering, and The existing regulatory mechanisms, disturbance compared to more changes in the timing and volume of especially the NPS Organic Act, appear intensively managed landscapes. We do snowmelt may change the existing to adequately protect the pristine nature not consider the species’ restricted habitat such that it no longer satisfies of Glacier NP and presumably the high- range to be a threat at the present time, the ecological and physiological alpine streams inhabited by the but we do anticipate that the species’ requirements of the species. While meltwater lednian stonefly. Thus, at a restricted range may interact with the existing regulatory mechanisms provide local or regional level we have no anticipated environmental changes adequate protection for the meltwater evidence that such regulatory resulting from the effects of climate lednian stonefly and its habitat from mechanisms are inadequate to protect change to increase the risk of direct destruction or modification the species now or in the foreseeable extirpation, and therefore to become a resulting from most human activities, future, and we expect that meltwater threat in the foreseeable future. the existing regulatory mechanisms do lednian stonefly habitat in Glacier NP not address the primary threat to the will be generally protected from direct Summary of Factor E species, which is habitat loss and human disturbance. However, we The restricted range of the meltwater modification resulting from consider habitat loss and modification lednian stonefly does not necessarily environmental changes caused by global resulting from the environmental constitute a threat in itself. However, climate change. Thus, under Factor D, changes due to climate change to the restricted range in concert with the we conclude the existing regulatory constitute the primary threat to the threat of habitat loss and modification mechanisms do not adequately address species. The United States is only now resulting from the environmental the threat of habitat loss and beginning to address global climate changes due to climate change is modification in the foreseeable future. change through the regulatory process expected to increase the vulnerability of In addition, under Factor E we conclude (e.g., Clean Air Act). We have no the species, and thus we anticipate this that the restricted range of the species, information on what regulations may will become a threat in the foreseeable while not a threat by itself, is expected eventually be adopted, and when future. We are not aware of any to interact with the threat of habitat loss implemented, if they would address the additional natural or manmade factors and modification to increase the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:08 Apr 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 18695

vulnerability of the species in the modification, or curtailment of its identified threats include inadequate forseeable future. habitat resulting from climate change, regulatory mechanisms for addressing On the basis of the best scientific and and the inadequacy of existing the environmental changes resulting commercial information available, we regulatory mechanisms to address from climate change, and the interaction find that listing of the meltwater lednian threats from climate change. of the species’ restricted range with the stonefly as endangered or threatened is Under the Service’s guidelines, the threat of habitat loss resulting from warranted. We will make a magnitude of threat is the first criterion climate change. These threats act in determination on the status of the we look at when establishing a listing concert with climate change, and so species as endangered or threatened priority. The guidelines indicate that they also are not imminent. We expect when we prepare a proposed listing species with the highest magnitude of the threat of climate change to intensify determination. However, as explained threat are those species facing the in the foreseeable future based on in more detail below (see Preclusion greatest threats to their continued projections of air temperature increases and Expeditious Progress section), an existence. These species receive the from current global climate models and immediate proposal of a regulation highest listing priority. We consider the the predicted melting of all glaciers in implementing this action is precluded threats that the meltwater lednian Glacier NP by the year 2030. Therefore, by higher priority listing actions, and stonefly faces from melting glaciers and based on our LPN guidelines, the threats progress is being made to add or remove other environmental changes that result are not imminent (ongoing). qualified species from the Lists of from climate change to be high in The third criterion in our LPN Endangered and Threatened Wildlife magnitude because of the recent guidelines is intended to devote and Plants. observations of glacial ablation resources to those species representing We have reviewed the available (shrinking) in Glacier NP and the highly distinctive or isolated gene pools information to determine if the existing projections that all glaciers in Glacier as reflected by taxonomy. The meltwater and foreseeable threats render the NP may disappear in the next 20 years, lednian stonefly (Lednia tumana) is a species at risk of extinction now, such and because we expect all known valid taxon at the species level and is that issuing an emergency regulation populations of the meltwater lednian currently recognized as a monotypic temporarily listing the species, under stonefly to be affected by these changes. genus; thus it receives a higher priority section 4(b)(7) of the Act, is warranted. Under our LPN guidelines, the second than a species or subspecies. We determined that issuing an criterion we consider in assigning a Therefore, we have assigned the emergency regulation temporarily listing priority is the immediacy of meltwater lednian stonefly an LPN of 4 listing the species is not warranted at threats. This criterion is intended to this time, because the species is not ensure that species facing actual, based on our determination that the under immediate threat of extinction. identifiable threats are given priority threats are high in magnitude but not Glaciers still exist in Glacier NP and are over those for which threats are only imminent, and because the species is expected to be present through the next potential or for those that are recognized as a monotypic genus. decade. However, if at any time we intrinsically vulnerable but are not We will continue to monitor the determine that issuing an emergency known to be presently facing such threats to the meltwater lednian stonefly regulation temporarily listing the threats. The significant reduction in and the species’ status on an annual meltwater lednian stonefly is warranted, glacier sizes in Glacier NP observed basis, and should the taxonomic status we will initiate the action at that time. during the past few decades and the or the magnitude or imminence of the changes in hydrologic patterns and threats change, we will revisit our Listing Priority Number water temperatures attributed to climate assessment of its LPN. The Service adopted guidelines on change suggests that habitat loss and Because we have assigned the September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098), to modification may represent a current meltwater lednian stonefly a LPN of 4, establish a rational system for utilizing threat to the species. Because of its work on a proposed listing available resources for the highest apparent dependence on glacial determination for the meltwater lednian priority species when adding species to meltwater for survival, the meltwater stonefly is precluded by work on higher the Lists of Endangered or Threatened lednian stonefly is intrinsically priority listing actions with absolute Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying vulnerable to threats from the statutory, court-ordered, or court- species listed as threatened to environmental changes resulting from approved deadlines and on final listing endangered status. These guidelines, climate change. However, we do not determinations for those species that titled ‘‘Endangered and Threatened have sufficient empirical information on were proposed for listing with funds Species Listing and Recovery Priority the meltwater lednian stonefly to from FY 2010. This work includes all Guidelines,’’ address the immediacy and evaluate whether there are any trends in the actions listed in the tables below magnitude of threats, and the level of the occurrence or abundance of the under Preclusion and Expeditious taxonomic distinctiveness by assigning species, nor do we have any information Progress. priority in descending order to about the species’ response to such Preclusion and Expeditious Progress monotypic genera (genus with one changes. Thus, we cannot conclude that species), full species, and subspecies (or the species is currently actually facing Preclusion is a function of the listing equivalently, distinct population the threat of habitat loss and priority of a species in relation to the segments of vertebrates). modification, which would be necessary resources that are available and the cost As a result of our analysis of the best to make a finding that the threat of and relative priority of competing available scientific and commercial environmental changes resulting from demands for those resources. Thus, in information, we assigned the meltwater climate change is imminent. any given fiscal year (FY), multiple lednian stonefly a Listing Priority Environmental changes resulting from factors dictate whether it will be Number (LPN) of 4 based on our finding climate change are reasonably certain to possible to undertake work on a listing that the species faces threats that are of occur, but we have no empirical proposal regulation or whether high magnitude but are not imminent. (documented) evidence that the promulgation of such a proposal is These primary threats include the resulting threat to the species is precluded by higher-priority listing present or threatened destruction, imminent (ongoing). The other actions.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:08 Apr 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 18696 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:08 Apr 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 18697

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

FY 2011 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS

Publication date Title Actions FR pages

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:08 Apr 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 18698 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

FY 2011 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued

Publication date Title Actions FR pages

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

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

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

Species Action

Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement

Mountain plover 4 ...... Final listing determination. Hermes copper butterfly 3 ...... 12-month petition finding. 4 parrot species (military macaw, yellow-billed parrot, red-crowned parrot, scarlet macaw) 5 ...... 12-month petition finding. 4 parrot species (blue-headed macaw, great green macaw, grey-cheeked parakeet, hyacinth macaw) 5 ...... 12-month petition finding. 4 parrots species (crimson shining parrot, white cockatoo, Philippine cockatoo, yellow-crested cockatoo) 5 ...... 12-month petition finding. Utah prairie dog (uplisting) ...... 90-day petition finding.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:08 Apr 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 18699

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

Species Action

Actions With Statutory Deadlines

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:08 Apr 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 18700 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

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

Species Action

American eel 4 ...... 90-day petition finding. Gila monster (Utah population) 4 ...... 90-day petition finding. Arapahoe snowfly 4 ...... 90-day petition finding. Leona’s little blue 4 ...... 90-day petition finding. Aztec gilia 5 ...... 90-day petition finding. White-tailed ptarmigan 5 ...... 90-day petition finding. San Bernardino flying squirrel 5 ...... 90-day petition finding. Bicknell’s thrush 5 ...... 90-day petition finding. Chimpanzee ...... 90-day petition finding. Sonoran talussnail 5 ...... 90-day petition finding. 2 AZ Sky Island plants (Graptopetalum bartrami & Pectis imberbis) 5 ...... 90-day petition finding. I’iwi 5 ...... 90-day petition finding.

High-Priority Listing Actions

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

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:08 Apr 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 18701

References Cited finding on the petition, which will (1) Each subspecies’ biology, range, A complete list of references cited is address whether the petitioned action is and population trends, including: available on the Internet at http:// warranted, as provided in section (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, www.regulations.gov and upon request 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. breeding, and sheltering; from the Montana Field Office (see DATES: To allow us adequate time to (b) Genetics and taxonomy; ADDRESSES section). conduct this review, we request that we (c) Historical and current range receive information on or before June 6, including distribution patterns, Authors 2011. After this date, you must submit particularly regarding their seasonal The primary authors of this notice are information directly to the office listed migrations; the staff members of the Montana Field in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION (d) Historical and current population Office. CONTACT section below. Please note that levels, and current and projected we may not be able to address or population trends; Authority incorporate information that we receive (e) Potential threats to each The authority for this section is after the above requested date. subspecies such as mining, resource extraction, or other threats not section 4 of the Endangered Species Act ADDRESSES: You may submit of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et information by one of the following identified; and seq.). methods: (f) Past and ongoing conservation measures for each subspecies or their Dated: March 21, 2011. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// habitat. Gregory E. Siekaniec, www.regulations.gov. Search for docket (2) The factors that are the basis for FWS–R9–ES–2010–0001 and then Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. making a listing determination for a follow the instructions for submitting [FR Doc. 2011–7827 Filed 4–4–11; 8:45 am] species or subspecies under section 4(a) comments. BILLING CODE 4310–55–P of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public which are: Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R9– (a) The present or threatened ES–2010–0001; Division of Policy and DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR destruction, modification, or Directives Management; U.S. Fish and curtailment of their habitat or range; Fish and Wildlife Service Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, (b) Overutilization for commercial, MS 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. 50 CFR Part 17 recreational, scientific, or educational We will post all information received purposes, particularly data on hunting; [FWS–R9–ES–2010–0001; MO 92210–0–0010 on http://www.regulations.gov. This (c) Disease or predation; B6] generally means that we will post any (d) The inadequacy of existing personal information you provide us regulatory mechanisms; or Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (see the Information Requested section (e) Other natural or manmade factors and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a below for more details). affecting their continued existence. Petition To List the Peary Caribou and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (3) The potential effects of climate Dolphin and Union Population of the Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of change on each subspecies and its Barren-Ground Caribou as Endangered Foreign Species, Endangered Species habitat. or Threatened Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Please include sufficient information AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420, with your submission (such as full Interior. Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703– references) to allow us to verify any 358–2171; facsimile 703–358–1735. If ACTION: Notice of petition finding and scientific or commercial information you use a telecommunications device initiation of status review. you include. Submissions merely stating for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal support for or opposition to the action SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Information Relay Service (FIRS) at under consideration without providing Wildlife Service, announce a 90-day 800–877–8339. supporting information, although noted, finding on a petition to list the Peary SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: will not be considered in making a (Rangifer tarandus pearyi) and the determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Information Requested Dolphin and Union population of the Act directs that determinations as to barren-ground (R. t. groenlandicus x When we make a finding that a whether any species is an endangered or pearyi) caribou as endangered or petition presents substantial threatened species must be made ‘‘solely threatened under the Endangered information indicating that listing a on the basis of the best scientific and Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). species or subspecies may be warranted, commercial data available.’’ Based on our review, we find that the we are required to promptly review the You may submit your information petition presents substantial scientific status of the species (conduct a status concerning this status review by one of and commercial information indicating review). For the status review to be the methods listed in the ADDRESSES that the petitioned action may be complete and based on the best section. If you submit information via warranted. Therefore, with the available scientific and commercial http://www.regulations.gov, your entire publication of this notice, we are information, we request information on submission—including any personal initiating a review of the status of these these two subspecies from governmental identifying information—will be posted two subspecies to determine if listing agencies (including Canadian national on the Web site. If you submit a these two subspecies is warranted. To and provincial governments), local hardcopy that includes personal ensure that this status review is indigenous people of Canada (who also identifying information, you may comprehensive, we request scientific may be acknowledged as Native request at the top of your document that and commercial data and other American or Aboriginal tribes), the we withhold this personal identifying information regarding these two scientific community, industry, and any information from public review. subspecies. At the conclusion of this other interested parties. We seek However, we cannot guarantee that we review, we will issue a 12-month information on: will be able to do so. We will post all

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:08 Apr 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS