64210 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

Federal Communications Commission. available by appointment, during glacier stonefly has already been John Schauble, normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and documented. Drought is expected to Deputy Chief, Broadband Division, Wireless Wildlife Service, Montana Ecological further reduce the amount of habitat Telecommunications Bureau. Services Office, 585 Shepard Way, Suite occupied by meltwater lednian stonefly [FR Doc. 2019–25202 Filed 11–20–19; 8:45 am] 1, Helena, MT 59601; 406–449–5225. and western glacier stonefly, due to BILLING CODE 6712–01–P FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jodi reductions of meltwater from seasonal Bush, Office Supervisor, U.S. Fish and snowpack and anticipated future Wildlife Service, Montana Ecological reduction of flow from other meltwater sources in the foreseeable future (Factor DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Services Field Office, 585 Shepard Way, Suite 1, Helena, MT 59601, by E). As a result of this anticipated loss of Fish and Wildlife Service telephone 406–449–5225. Persons who habitat, only a few refugia streams and use a telecommunications device for the springs are expected to persist in the 50 CFR Part 17 deaf may call the Federal Relay Service long term. Recolonization of at 800–877–8339. intermittent habitats where known [Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2016–0086; occurrences of either species are SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 4500030113] extirpated is not anticipated, given the RIN 1018–BB52 Executive Summary poor dispersal abilities of similar Why we need to publish a rule. Under stonefly species. Threats to meltwater Endangered and Threatened Wildlife the Endangered Species Act, a species lednian stonefly and western glacier and Plants; Threatened Species Status may warrant protection through listing stonefly habitat are currently occurring for Meltwater Lednian Stonefly and if it is endangered or threatened rangewide, are based on empirical evidence of past and current glacial Western Glacier Stonefly With a throughout all or a significant portion of melting, and are expected to continue Section 4(d) Rule its range. Listing a species as an into the foreseeable future. endangered or threatened species can AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Peer review and public comment. We Interior. only be completed by issuing a rule. sought comments from seven objective What this document does. This rule ACTION: Final rule. and independent specialists (and will add the meltwater lednian stonefly received three responses) to ensure that SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and (Lednia tumana) and western glacier our determination is based on Wildlife Service (Service), determine stonefly (Zapada glacier) as threatened scientifically sound data, assumptions, threatened species status under the species to the List of Endangered and and analyses. As directed by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), Threatened Wildlife in title 50 of the Service’s Peer Review Policy dated July as amended, for the meltwater lednian Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270) and a recent stonefly (Lednia tumana) and the 17.11(h) with a rule issued under memo updating the peer review policy western glacier stonefly (Zapada section 4(d) of the Act (hereafter for listing and recovery actions (August glacier), both aquatic species from referred to as a ‘‘4(d) rule’’) at 50 CFR 22, 2016), we invited these peer alpine streams and springs. Meltwater 17.47. reviewers to comment on our listing lednian stoneflies are found in Montana The basis for our action. Under the proposal. We also considered all and Canada, and western glacier Endangered Species Act, we can comments and information received stoneflies are found in Montana and determine that a species is an during two public comment periods. All Wyoming. The effect of this regulation endangered or threatened species based comments received during the peer will be to add these species to the List on any of five factors: (A) The present review process and the public comment of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. or threatened destruction, modification, periods have either been incorporated We also finalize a rule under the or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) throughout this rule or addressed in the authority of section 4(d) of the Act that Overutilization for commercial, Summary of Comments and provides measures that are necessary recreational, scientific, or educational Recommendations section. purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) and advisable to provide for the Previous Federal Action conservation of these species. We have The inadequacy of existing regulatory also determined that designation of mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or Please refer to the proposed listing critical habitat for these species is not manmade factors affecting its continued rule for the meltwater lednian stonefly prudent. existence. We have determined that and western glacier stonefly (81 FR habitat fragmentation and degradation 68379, October 4, 2016) for a detailed DATES: This rule becomes effective in the form of declining streamflows description of previous Federal actions December 23, 2019. and increasing water temperatures concerning these species prior to ADDRESSES: This final rule is available at resulting from climate change are October 4, 2016. In that proposed rule, http://www.regulations.gov in Docket currently affecting habitat for the we explained that we received new No. FWS–R6–ES–2016–0086 and at meltwater lednian stonefly and the information on the western glacier https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/ western glacier stonefly (Factor A). stonefly in August 2016, indicating a es/meltwaterLednianStonefly.php and at Based on empirical evidence, most larger range than previously known. https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/ glaciers supplying cold water to However, due to a settlement agreement es/westernGlacierStonefly.php on the meltwater lednian and western glacier deadline, we were unable to fully internet. Comments and materials we stonefly habitats in Glacier National incorporate and analyze the new received, as well as supporting Park (GNP) are projected to melt by information before publishing our documentation we used in preparing 2030. As a result, habitat with a high October 4, 2016, 12-month finding and this rule, are available for public probability of occupancy for the proposed listing rule. In March 2017, we inspection at http:// meltwater lednian stonefly is modeled received additional information www.regulations.gov. Comments, to decrease 81 percent by 2030 (separate from the information received materials, and documentation that we (Muhlfeld et al. 2011, p. 342). A in August 2016) on the western glacier considered in this rulemaking will be decrease in distribution of western stonefly, also indicating a larger range

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Nov 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM 21NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 64211

than previously known. On October 31, preamble to our 2016 proposed rule, we Montana and southwest Alberta 2017, we reopened the comment period determined that a rule that included the (Giersch et al. 2017; p. 2582). on our proposed listing rule to allow the prohibitions set forth in 50 CFR 17.21 Specifically, meltwater lednian public to comment on both sets of new for endangered species would be stoneflies are known to occur in 113 information (82 FR 50360). Now that we necessary and advisable for the streams: 109 in Glacier National Park have had the opportunity to fully conservation of the meltwater lednian (GNP), 2 south of GNP on National consider this new information from stonefly and the western glacier Forest land, 1 south of GNP on tribal August 2016 and March 2017, we have stonefly. Consequently, we are land (Figure 1; Giersch et al. 2017; p. incorporated it into this final rule. promulgating a species-specific 4(d) rule 2582), and 1 north of GNP in Waterton Our October 4, 2016, proposed rule that outlines the protections that were Lakes National Park in Alberta, Canada included a determination that critical described in the 2016 proposed rule; see (Donald and Anderson 1977, p. 114; habitat for the meltwater lednian Provisions of the 4(d) Rule, below. Baumann and Kondratieff 2010, p. 315; stonefly and western glacier stonefly I. Final Listing Determination was prudent but not determinable at Giersch 2017, pers. comm.). In the that time (81 FR 68379). Since that time, Background proposed rule (81 FR 68379, October 4, 2016), we indicated meltwater lednian the Service finalized regulations related Both the meltwater lednian stonefly to listing species and designating stoneflies were known from historical (e.g., Baumann 1975, p. 18; Baumann et collections in Waterton Lakes National critical habitat (84 FR 45020, August 27, al. 1977, pp. 7, 34; Newell et al. 2008, 2019), which revised the regulations Park in Canada, but were not known to p. 181; Stark et al. 2009, entire) and that implement section 4 of the Act and be extant there. However, recent surveys western glacier stonefly (Baumann 1975, clarify circumstances in which critical conducted after the proposed rule was p. 30; Stark 1996, entire; Stark et al. habitat may be found not prudent. published have also documented the 2009, p. 8) are recognized as valid Regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) species in the same watershed in species by the scientific community. provide the circumstances when critical Waterton Lakes National Park where Both stonefly species begin life as eggs, habitat may be not prudent, and we they were sampled historically (Giersch hatch into aquatic nymphs, and later have determined that a designation of 2017, pers. comm.). Meltwater lednian mature into winged adults, surviving critical habitat for these species is not briefly on land before reproducing and stoneflies occupy relatively short prudent, as discussed further below. dying. Meltwater habitat for meltwater reaches of streams [mean = 592 meters Our October 4, 2016, proposed rule lednian stonefly and western glacier (m) (1,942 feet; ft); standard deviation = also referenced a section of the stonefly is supplied by glaciers and rock 455 m (1,493 ft)] below meltwater regulation that provided threatened sources (for description, see Habitat species with the same protections as glaciers, as well as by four other sources: (1) Seasonal snow, (2) section below; Giersch et al. 2017; p. endangered species also known as 2582). Meltwater lednian stoneflies can ‘‘blanket rules’’ (50 CFR 17.31). The perennial snow, (3) alpine springs, and (4) ice masses (Giersch et al. 2017, p. attain moderate to high densities [(350– Service has since published regulations 5,800 per square m) (32–537 per square on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44753), 2584). Please refer to the proposed ft)] (e.g., Logan Creek: Baumann and amending 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.71 that listing rule for the meltwater lednian Stewart 1980, p. 658; National Park state ‘‘the blanket rules will no longer be stonefly and western glacier stonefly (81 Service (NPS) 2009, entire; Muhlfeld et in place, but the Secretary will still be FR 68379, October 4, 2016) for a full required to make a decision about what discussion of taxonomy, species al. 2011, p. 342; Giersch 2016, pers. regulations to put in place for the descriptions, and biology. We have comm.). Given this range of densities species.’’ While the Service always had received no new substantive and a coarse assessment of available the ability to promulgate species- information on those topics since that habitat, we estimated the abundance of specific 4(d) rules for threatened time. meltwater lednian stonefly in the species, moving forward we will Distribution and Abundance millions of individuals; however, no promulgate a species-specific 4(d) rule population trend information is for each species that we determine Meltwater Lednian Stonefly available for the meltwater lednian meets the definition of a threatened Meltwater lednian stoneflies are stonefly. species. As explained below, in the known to occur in northwestern BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Nov 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM 21NOR1 64212 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C from the number reported in the moderate densities [(400–2,300 per Western Glacier Stonefly proposed rule, due to new information square m) (37–213 per square ft)] in received after the proposed rule was GNP (Giersch 2016, pers. comm.). Lower Western glacier stoneflies are known published (Hotaling et al. 2017, entire; densities of western glacier stoneflies to occur in 16 streams: 6 in GNP, 4 in Giersch et al. 2017, p. 2584). Similar to have been reported in GTNP [(up to 11– Grand Teton National Park (GTNP), and the meltwater lednian stonefly, western 56 per square m) (up to 1–5 per square 6 in the Absaroka/Beartooth Wilderness glacier stoneflies are found on relatively ft)] (Tronstad 2017, pers. comm.). Given on the Custer/Gallatin National Forest short reaches of streams [mean = 569 m this range of densities and a coarse (Figure 2; Giersch et al. 2017, p. 2584; (1,869 ft); standard deviation = 459 m assessment of available habitat, we Giersch 2017, pers. comm.). The number (1,506 ft)] in close proximity to estimated the abundance of the western of streams known to be occupied by meltwater sources (Giersch et al. 2017). glacier stonefly to be in the tens of western glacier stonefly has increased Western glacier stoneflies can attain thousands of individuals, presumably

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Nov 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM 21NOR1 ER21NO19.013 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 64213

less numerous than the meltwater increased the known range of the among and within six streams in GNP lednian stonefly. species by about 500 kilometers (km) where the species was known to occur The recent discovery and subsequent (∼311 miles (mi)) southward (Hotaling et in the 1960s and 1970s (Giersch et al. genetic confirmation of western glacier al. 2017, entire; Giersch et al. 2017, p. 2015, p. 58). stoneflies in streams in GTNP and the 2585). However, western glacier BILLING CODE 4333–15–P Absaroka/Beartooth Wilderness has stoneflies have decreased in distribution

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C appears to be similar to the habitat both conducted in this area, and no The northern distributional limits of species are currently occupying, exists specimens of either species were found, the meltwater lednian stonefly and the in the area of Banff and Jasper National although it is likely that sampling did western glacier stonefly are not known. Parks, Alberta, Canada. Aquatic not occur close enough to glaciers or Potential habitat for meltwater lednian and western glacier stoneflies, which invertebrate surveys have been icefields to detect either meltwater

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Nov 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM 21NOR1 ER21NO19.014 64214 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

lednian or western glacier stonefly, if glacier stonefly appear similar to those information relevant to our analysis of indeed they were present (Hirose 2016, for the meltwater lednian stonefly as those factors. Also, see the proposed pers. comm.). Sampling in this area for described above (Giersch et al. 2017, p. listing rule for discussion of synergistic both meltwater lednian and western 2579). effects and the Factor E discussion in this rule, which addresses comments glacier stoneflies is planned for the Summary of Biological Status and from a peer reviewer with regard to future and would help fill in an Threats important data gap with regard to synergistic effects (81 FR 68379, October northern distributional limits of both Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 4, 2016, pp. 68392–68393). species. and its implementing regulations (50 For listing factors A and E, we made CFR part 424) set forth the procedures substantive changes between the Habitat for determining whether a species meets proposed and final listing rules. As Meltwater Lednian Stonefly the definition of ‘‘endangered species’’ described further below in Summary of or ‘‘threatened species.’’ The Act defines Changes from the Proposed Rule, in the The meltwater lednian stonefly is an ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species proposed listing rule, we identified found in high-elevation, alpine streams that is ‘‘in danger of extinction populations of meltwater lednian (Baumann and Stewart 1980, p. 658; throughout all or a significant portion of stonefly and western glacier stonefly Montana Natural Heritage Program its range,’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as based on watershed boundaries. 2010a) originating from meltwater a species that is ‘‘likely to become an However, multiple peer reviewers sources, including glaciers and small endangered species within the observed the need for empirical icefields, perennial and seasonal foreseeable future throughout all or a evidence to support that assessment. snowpack, alpine springs, and glacial significant portion of its range.’’ The Act Therefore, we have updated our lake outlets (Hauer et al. 2007, p. 107; requires that we determine whether a explanation to describe the number of Giersch et al. 2017, p. 2584). These species meets the definition of streams occupied by both meltwater streams are believed to be fishless, due ‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened lednian stonefly and western glacier to their high gradient. Meltwater species’’ because of any of the following stonefly in our Factors A and E lednian stoneflies are known from factors: (A) The present or threatened analyses. In addition, we received alpine streams where modeled destruction, modification, or updated information on the distribution maximum water temperatures do not curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) ° of meltwater lednian stonefly and exceed 10 degrees Celsius ( C) (50 Overutilization for commercial, ° western glacier stonefly after the degrees Fahrenheit ( F)) (Giersch et al. recreational, scientific, or educational proposed rule was published. Meltwater 2017, p. 2584), although the species can purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) lednian stonefly are now known from withstand higher water temperatures The inadequacy of existing regulatory southwest Alberta, Canada (Giersch et ∼ ° ° ( 20 C; 68 F) for short periods of time mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or al. 2017; p. 2582). In addition, new (Treanor et al. 2013, p. 602). In general, manmade factors affecting its continued information documented and the alpine streams inhabited by the existence. genetically confirmed the presence of meltwater lednian stonefly are Our implementing regulations at 50 western glacier stonefly approximately presumed to have very low nutrient CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework 500 km (311 mi) farther south than concentrations (low nitrogen and within which we evaluate the previously known (Giersch et al. 2016, phosphorus), reflecting the nutrient foreseeable future on a case-by-case p. 28; Hotaling et al. 2017, entire). These content of the glacial or snowmelt basis. The term foreseeable future southern populations of western glacier source (Hauer et al. 2007, pp. 107–108). extends only so far into the future as the stonefly were in the Absaroka-Beartooth During the daytime, meltwater lednian Services can reasonably determine that wilderness in southern Montana and in stonefly nymphs prefer to occupy the both the future threats and the species’ Grand Teton National Park in underside of rocks or larger pieces of responses to those threats are likely. The northwestern Wyoming. As a result of bark or wood (Baumann and Stewart foreseeable future extends only so far as this new information, we have now 1980, p. 658; Giersch et al. 2017, p. the predictions about the future are identified a total of 16 streams occupied 2579). reliable. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not mean by western glacier stonefly. Here, we ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to provide Western Glacier Stonefly analyze how both species are affected by a reasonable degree of confidence in the threats under Factors A and E in all of Western glacier stoneflies are found in prediction. Analysis of the foreseeable their currently known locations. high-elevation, alpine streams closely future uses the best scientific and linked to the same meltwater sources as commercial data available and should Factor A. The Present or Threatened the meltwater lednian stonefly (Giersch consider the timeframes applicable to Destruction, Modification, or et al. 2017; p. 2584). The specific the relevant threats and to the species’ Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range thermal tolerances of the western glacier likely responses to those threats in view Meltwater lednian stoneflies occupy stonefly are not known. However, all of its life-history characteristics. remote, high-elevation alpine habitats in recent collections of the western glacier Below is a summary of biological GNP and several proximate watersheds. stonefly in GNP have occurred in status and threats for listing factors A Western glacier stoneflies occupy habitats with daily maximum water and E, including new information and similar habitats in GNP, GTNP, and the temperatures less than 13.3 °C (55.9 °F) citations provided to us during the peer Absaroka/Beartooth Wilderness. The (Giersch et al. 2017, p. 2584). Further, review and public comment period. See remoteness of these habitats largely abundance patterns for other species in the proposed listing rule for information precludes overlap with human uses and the Zapada genus in GNP indicate on biological status and threats for typical land management activities (e.g., preferences for the coolest listing factors B, C, and D (81 FR 68379, forestry, mining, irrigation) that have environmental temperatures, such as October 4, 2016; pp. 68390–68392). We historically modified habitats of many those found at high elevation in did not make substantive changes to species. However, these relatively proximity to headwater sources (Hauer listing factors B, C, and D between the pristine, remote habitats are not et al. 2007, p. 110). Daytime proposed and final listing rules because expected to be immune to the effects of microhabitat preferences of the western we have received no new substantive climate change. Thus, our analysis

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Nov 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM 21NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 64215

under Factor A focuses on the expected anticipated effects of climate change on First, the projected future air effects of climate change on meltwater the alpine environment to be temperature increase of 0.45 °C (by lednian and western glacier stonefly approximately 35 years (∼year 2050) 2100) under the linear temperature- habitats. based on two factors. First, various extrapolation scenario is now projected global climate models and emissions to occur by 2035 (IPCC 2014, p. 10)— Climate Change scenarios provide consistent projections 65 years sooner than projected under See the proposed listing rule for within that timeframe (IPCC 2014, p. the linear temperature-extrapolation. general background information on 11). Second, the effect of climate change This new projection is based on 11 global climate change (81 FR 68379, on glaciers in GNP has been modeled additional years of climate data that October 4, 2016). within that timeframe (e.g., Hall and were not available in 2003. Thus, the Uncertainty in Climate Projections Fagre 2003, entire; Brown et al. 2010, linear temperature-extrapolation model entire). is overly conservative. Second, while Any model (representation of Habitats for both the meltwater both future air temperature projections something) carries with it some level of lednian stonefly and the western glacier (i.e., 3.3 °C and 0.45 °C) from Hall and uncertainty. Consequently, there is stonefly originate from meltwater Fagre 2003 are bracketed by newer uncertainty in climate projections and sources that will be impacted by any projections of air temperature rise from related impacts across and within projected warming, including glaciers, varying climate scenarios in IPCC 2014 different regions of the world (e.g., Glick rock glaciers and small icefields, (p. 10), the mean annual air temperature et al. 2011, pp. 68–73; Deser et al. 2012, perennial and seasonal snowpack, for GNP and the surrounding region is entire; International Panel on Climate alpine springs, and glacial lake outlets increasing at 1.8 times the global rate Change (IPCC) 2014, pp. 12, 14). This (Hauer et al. 2007, p. 107; Giersch et al. (USGS 2010, p. 1). This means that the uncertainty can come from multiple 2017, p. 2584). The alteration or loss of CO2 scenario with its higher future air sources, including type, amount, and these meltwater sources and perennial temperature projection (i.e., 3.3 °C) is quality of evidence, changing habitat has direct consequences on both more likely to represent the likely air likelihoods of diverse outcomes, meltwater lednian stonefly and western temperature change in the GNP area. ambiguously defined concepts or glacier stonefly populations. Below, we Indeed, the range of projected future air terminology, or human behavior (IPCC provide an overview of expected rate of temperatures in three of the four global 2014, pp. 37, 56, 58, 128). Methods loss of meltwater sources as a result of climate scenarios used in IPCC 2014 developed to convey uncertainty in climate change, followed by the (i.e., Representative Concentration climate projections include quantifying projected effects to stonefly habitat from Pathways (RCPs) 4.5, 6.0, and 8.5; IPCC uncertainty (IPCC 2014, p. 2) or altered stream flows and water 2014, p. 8) include 3.3 °C, after taking analyzing for trends among climate temperatures. into account the regional increase of projections (IPCC 2014, pp. 8, 10). Also, Glacier Loss projected air temperatures of 1.8 times uncertainty in climate projections can the global rate. be reduced by using more regionalized Glacier loss in GNP is directly Conversely, even the most data to produce higher resolution, more influenced by climate change (e.g., Hall conservative (i.e., lowest emissions) accurate climate projections (Glick et al. and Fagre 2003, entire; Fagre 2005, global climate scenario used in IPCC 2011, pp. 58–61). This uncertainty was entire). When established in 1910, GNP 2014 (RCP 2.6) does not encompass the considered in this determination. We contained approximately 150 glaciers air temperature projection (0.45 °C) from note that despite the inherent larger than 0.1 square kilometer (25 the linear temperature-extrapolation uncertainties associated with climate acres) in size, but presently only 25 model, after taking into account the models/projections, empirical data are glaciers larger than this size remain regional increase of projected air used to develop climate models. These (Fagre 2005, pp. 1–3; USGS 2005, 2010). temperatures of 1.8 times the global rate. models and their associated projections Hall and Fagre (2003, entire) modeled Third, recent observations of glacier often constitute the best available the effects of climate change on glacier melting rates indicate faster melt than science, in the absence of other relevant persistence in GNP’s Blackfoot-Jackson projected by the CO2 scenario (Muhlfeld information. basin using two climate scenarios based et al. 2011, p. 339). Intuitively, this on empirical air temperature and glacier Regional Climate indicates the CO2 scenario would be melt rate data: (1) Doubling of expected to better represent future air The western United States appears to atmospheric carbon dioxide by 2030 temperatures and glacier persistence, be warming faster than the global (CO2) and (2) linear temperature- relative to the more conservative linear average. In the Pacific Northwest, extrapolation. Under the CO2 scenario, temperature-extrapolation model. For regionally averaged temperatures have regional air temperatures were projected these reasons, we expect the CO2 risen 0.8 °C (1.5 °F) over the last century to increase 3.3 °C by 2100, and glaciers scenario to better represent future air and as much as 2 °C (4 °F) in some areas were projected to completely melt in temperature increase and glacier and are projected to increase by another GNP by 2030, with projected increases persistence in GNP than the linear 1.5 to 5.5 °C (3 to 10 °F) over the next in winter precipitation not expected to temperature-extrapolation scenario. 100 years (Karl et al. 2009, p. 135). buffer glacial shrinking (Hall and Fagre A more recent analysis of Sperry Since 1900, the mean annual air 2003, pp. 137–138). Under the linear Glacier in GNP estimates this particular temperature for GNP and the temperature-extrapolation scenario, glacier (1 of 25 glaciers remaining from surrounding region has increased 1.3 °C regional air temperatures were projected the historical 150 glaciers larger than 25 (2.3 °F), which is 1.8 times the global to increase 0.45 °C by 2100, and glaciers acres) may persist through 2080, in part mean increase (U.S. Geological Survey were projected to completely melt in due to annual avalanche inputs from an (USGS) 2010, p. 1). Warming also GNP by 2277 (Hall and Fagre 2003, pp. adjacent cirque wall (Brown et al. 2010, appears to be pronounced in alpine 137–138). p. 5). We are not aware of any other regions globally (e.g., Hall and Fagre We determined that the CO2 scenario published studies using more recent 2003, p. 134 and references therein). For was likely to better represent future air climate scenarios that speak directly to the purposes of this final rule, we temperature conditions and glacier anticipated conditions of the remaining consider the foreseeable future for persistence in GNP for multiple reasons. glaciers in GNP. Thus, we largely rely

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Nov 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM 21NOR1 64216 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

on Hall and Fagre’s (2003) projections The sources of meltwater that supply and to mature before reproducing under the CO2 scenario in our analysis, meltwater lednian and western glacier (Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 217). supplemented with more recent glacier- stonefly habitat are expected to be Given that both stonefly species are specific studies where appropriate (e.g., affected by the changing climate at believed to be poor dispersers (similar Brown et al. 2010, entire). different time intervals. In general, we to other Plecopterans; Baumann and The longevity of glaciers and expect all meltwater sources to decline Gaufin 1971, p. 277), recolonization of snowfields in GTNP and the Absaroka/ under a changing climate, given the previously occupied habitats is not Beartooth Wilderness is unknown. relationship between climate and glacial expected following dewatering and While most of these glaciers occur at melting (Hall and Fagre 2003, entire; extirpation events. Lack of higher elevations than those in GNP, Fagre 2005, entire) and recent climate recolonization by either stonefly species multiple factors other than elevation observations and modeling (IPCC 2014, is expected to lead to further isolation influence glacial retreat rates, including entire). It is likely that seasonal between extant occupied streams. size, latitude, and aspect (Janke 2007, p. snowpack levels will be most Currently, 107 streams (of 113) 80). Middle Teton glacier in GTNP is immediately affected by climate change, occupied by meltwater lednian stonefly projected to persist through the year as the frequency of more extreme and 12 streams (of 16) occupied by 2100 (Tootle et al. 2010, p. 29); weather events increases (IPCC 2014, p. western glacier stonefly are supplied by however, this projection is based on the 8). These extremes may result in seasonal snowpack, perennial assumption that future glacial retreat increased seasonal snowpack in some snowpack, ice masses, and some rates will be the same as those observed years and reduced snowpack in others. glaciers (Giersch et al. 2017, p. 2584; during the period of study (i.e., 1967– We expect that effects to meltwater Giersch 2017, pers. comm.). Meltwater 2006; Tootle et al. 2010, p. 29). This lednian stonefly habitats south of GNP from these sources is expected to scenario appears unlikely because may occur sooner in time than those become inconsistent by 2030 (Hall and glacier size is an important variable in discussed for GNP. The timing of Fagre 2003, p. 137). Although the rate at glacier retreat rates (Janke 2007, p. 80), snowfield and ice mass disappearance is which flows will be reduced or at which whereby the rate of glacial melting expected to be before the majority of dewatering events will occur in these increases as glaciers shrink. Thus, the glacial melting (i.e., 2030), because habitats is unclear, we expect, at a longevity of glaciers and snowfields in perennial snowpack and ice masses are minimum, to see decreases in GTNP and the Absaroka/Beartooth less dense than glaciers and typically abundance and distribution of both have smaller volumes of snow and ice. species as a result. By 2030, we also Wilderness is unclear at this time. However, alpine springs, at least those anticipate the remaining occupied Petersen Glacier in GTNP is a rock supplemented with groundwater, may habitats to be further isolated relative to glacier that provides meltwater to one continue to be present after complete current conditions. stream occupied by the western glacier glacial melting. Our analysis primarily Alpine springs—Declines in stonefly. A rock glacier is a glacier that focuses on effects to the meltwater meltwater sources are also expected to is covered by rocks and other debris. lednian stonefly and the western glacier affect flows in alpine springs, although The size of Petersen Glacier is unknown stonefly and their habitat within GNP likely on a longer time scale than for because it is mostly covered in rocks. because more data are available for meltwater streams. Flow from alpine However, rock glaciers melt more those areas. springs in the northern Rocky slowly than alpine glaciers because of Mountains originates from glacial or the insulating properties of the debris Streamflows snow meltwater in part, sometimes covering the main glacial ice mass Meltwater streams—Declines in supplemented with groundwater (Hauer (Janke 2007, p. 80; Pelto 2000, pp. 39– meltwater sources are expected to affect et al. 2007, p. 107). For this reason, 40; Brenning 2005, p. 237). Thus, cold- flows in meltwater streams in GNP. some alpine springs are expected to be water habitats originating from rock Glaciers and other meltwater sources act more climate-resilient and persist longer glaciers may be present longer into the as water banks, whose continual melt than meltwater streams and may serve future than from other meltwater maintains streamflows during late as refugia areas for meltwater lednian sources. summer or drought periods (Hauer et al. and western glacier stoneflies, at least in Loss of Other Meltwater Sources 2007, p. 107). Following glacier loss, the near term (Ward 1994, p. 283). declines in streamflow and periodic However, small aquifers feeding alpine Meltwater in meltwater lednian dewatering events are expected to occur springs are ultimately replenished by stonefly and western glacier stonefly in meltwater streams in the northern glacial and other meltwater sources in habitat is supplied by glaciers and rock Rocky Mountains (Hauer et al. 1997, p. alpine environments (Hauer et al. 1997, glaciers, as well as by four other 909; Leppi et al. 2012, p. 1105; Clark et p. 908). sources: (1) Seasonal snow, (2) al. 2015, p. 14). In similarly glaciated Once glaciers in GNP melt, small perennial snow, (3) alpine springs, and regions, intermittent stream flows have aquifer volumes and the groundwater (4) ice masses (Giersch et al. 2017, p. been documented following glacial influence they provide to alpine springs 2584). Seasonal snow is that which recession and loss (Robinson et al. 2015, are expected to decline. Thus by 2030, accumulates and melts seasonally, with p. 8). By 2030, the modeled distribution even flows from alpine springs the amount varying year to year of habitat with the highest likelihood of supplemented with groundwater are depending on annual weather events. supporting meltwater lednian stoneflies expected to decline (Hauer et al. 1997, Perennial snow is some portion of a is projected to decline by 81 percent in p. 910; Clark et al. 2015, p. 14). This snowfield that does not generally melt GNP, compared to the present amount expected pattern of decline is consistent on an annual basis, the volume of which of habitat (Muhlfeld et al. 2011, p. 342). with observed patterns of low flow from can change over time. Alpine springs Desiccation (drying) of these habitats, alpine springs in the Rocky Mountains originate from some combination of even periodically, could eliminate region and other glaciated regions meltwater from snow, ice masses or entire populations of the meltwater during years with little snowpack glaciers, and groundwater. Ice masses lednian stonefly and the western glacier (Hauer et al. 1997, p. 910; Robinson et are smaller than glaciers and do not stonefly because the aquatic nymphs al. 2015, p. 9). Further, following actively move as glaciers do. need perennial flowing water to breathe complete melting of glaciers, drying of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Nov 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM 21NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 64217

alpine springs in GNP might be an increase in water temperatures above occupied streams) originate from alpine expected if annual precipitation fails to the physiological limits for survival or springs. Thus, despite the fact that recharge groundwater supplies. Changes optimal growth for the meltwater alpine springs may be more thermally in future precipitation levels due to lednian and western glacier stoneflies. stable than meltwater streams and climate change in the GNP region are As a result of melting glaciers and a provide thermal refugia to both the projected to range from relatively lower volume of meltwater input into meltwater lednian stonefly and the unchanged to a small (∼10 percent) streams, we expect upward elevational western glacier stonefly, a small annual increase (IPCC 2014, pp. 20–21). shifts of meltwater lednian stonefly and percentage of each species may benefit Only 6 streams (out of 113) occupied western glacier stonefly, as they track from these potential refugia. by meltwater lednian stonefly and 4 their optimal thermal preferences. Glacial lake outlets—Similar to alpine streams (out of 16) occupied by western However, both meltwater lednian springs, glacial lake outlets are more glacier stonefly originate from alpine stonefly and western glacier stonefly thermally stable habitats than meltwater springs. Thus, despite the potential for already occupy the most upstream streams. This situation is likely due to some alpine springs to provide refugia portions of these habitats and can move the buffering effect of large volumes of for both stonefly species after glaciers upstream only to the extent of the glacial lake water supplying these melt, only a few populations may receding glacier/snowfield. Once the habitats. It is anticipated that the benefit from these potential refugia. glaciers and snowfields completely buffering effects of glacial lakes will Glacial lake outlets—Similar to alpine melt, meltwater lednian stoneflies and continue to limit increases in water springs, flow from glacial lake outlets is western glacier stoneflies will have no temperature to outlet stream habitats, expected to diminish gradually physical habitat left to which to migrate even after the loss of glaciers. However, following the projected melting of most upstream. The likely result of this water temperatures are still expected to glaciers around 2030. Glacial lakes are scenario would be the extirpation of increase over time following complete expected to receive annual inflow from stoneflies from these habitats. Other glacial loss in GNP. It is unknown melting snow from the preceding indirect effects of warming water whether water temperature increases in winter, although the amount by which temperatures on both stonefly species glacial lake outlets will exceed it may be reduced after complete glacial could include encroaching aquatic presumed temperature thresholds for melting is unknown. Reductions in flow invertebrate species that may be meltwater lednian and western glacier from glacial lakes are expected to, at a superior competitors, or changed stonefly in the future. However, given minimum, decrease the amount of thermal conditions that may favor the the low water temperatures recorded in available habitat for both meltwater encroaching species in competitive habitats where both species have been lednian and western glacier stoneflies. interactions between the species collected, even small increases in water One occurrence each of the meltwater (condition-specific competition). temperature of glacial lake outlets may lednian stonefly and the western glacier The majority of streams occupied by be biologically significant and stonefly occupy a glacial lake outlet meltwater lednian stonefly and one detrimental to the persistence of both (Upper Grinnell Lake; Giersch et al. stream occupied by western glacier species for the reasons described 2015, p. 58; Giersch et al. 2017, p. 2588). stonefly are habitats that may warm previously. Thus, despite the fact that this habitat significantly by 2030, due to the One stream occupied by meltwater type may continue to provide refugia for projected complete melting of glaciers lednian stonefly and the western glacier both stonefly species even after the and snow and ice fields. Increasing stonefly is a glacial lake outlet (Upper complete loss of glaciers, a small water temperatures may be related to Grinnell Lake; Giersch et al. 2015, p. 58; percentage of each species may benefit recent distributional declines of western Giersch et al. 2017). Thus, despite the from these potential refugia. As such, glacier stoneflies within GNP (Giersch et fact that glacial lake outlets may be we conclude that habitat degradation in al. 2015, p. 61). more thermally stable than meltwater the form of reduced streamflows due to Alpine springs—Although meltwater streams and provide thermal refugia to the effects of climate change will impact contributions to alpine springs are both the meltwater lednian stonefly and 95 percent of streams occupied by expected to decline as glaciers and the western glacier stonefly, a small meltwater lednian stonefly and 75 perennial snow melt, water temperature percentage of each species may benefit percent of streams occupied by western at the springhead may remain relatively from these potential refugia. glacier stonefly populations within the consistent due to the influence of Consequently, we conclude that changes foreseeable future. groundwater, at least in the short term. in water temperature from climate The springhead itself may provide change are a threat to most populations Water Temperature refugia for both meltwater lednian and of both stonefly species now and into Meltwater streams—Glaciers act as western glacier stoneflies, although the future. water banks, whose continual melting stream reaches below the actual maintains suitable water temperatures springhead are expected to exhibit Maintenance and Improvement of for meltwater lednian stonefly and similar increases in water temperature National Park Infrastructure western glacier stonefly during late in response to loss of glacial meltwater Glacier National Park and Grand summer or drought periods (Hauer et al. as those described for meltwater Teton National Park are managed to 2007, p. 107; USGS 2010). As glaciers streams. However, as described above, protect natural and cultural resources, melt and contribute less volume of some alpine springs may eventually dry and the landscapes within these parks meltwater to streams, water up after glacier and snowpack loss, if are relatively pristine. However, both temperatures are expected to rise (Hauer annual precipitation fails to recharge National Parks include a number of et al. 1997, p. 909; Clark et al. 2015, p. groundwater supplies (Hauer et al. human-built facilities and structures 14). Aquatic invertebrates have specific 1997, p. 910; Robinson et al. 2015, p. 9). that support visitor services, recreation, temperature needs that influence their Only six streams occupied by the and access, such as the Going-to-the- distribution (Fagre et al. 1997, p. 763; meltwater lednian stonefly (5 percent of Sun Road (which bisects GNP) and Lowe and Hauer 1999, pp. 1637, 1640, total known occupied streams) and four numerous visitor centers, trailheads, 1642; Hauer et al. 2007, p. 110); streams occupied by the western glacier overlooks, and lodges (e.g., NPS 2003a, complete glacial melting may result in stonefly (25 percent of total known pp. S3, 11). Maintenance and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Nov 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM 21NOR1 64218 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

improvement of these facilities and August (Giersch 2010a, pers. comm.), expected to further reduce or degrade structures could conceivably lead to making them accessible for only a few remaining refugia habitat (alpine springs disturbance of the natural environment. months annually. We also note that the and glacial lake outlets) for both In the proposed listing rule, we most accessible collection sites in Logan meltwater lednian and western glacier mentioned we were aware of one water Creek near the Logan Pass Visitor Center stoneflies. In GTNP and the Absaroka/ diversion on Logan Creek in GNP that and the Going-to-the-Sun Road in GNP Beartooth Wilderness, we expect a was scheduled to be retrofitted by the are currently closed to public use and similar pattern of meltwater stream NPS. Logan Creek is occupied by entry to protect resident vegetation (NPS warming and potential drying. Projected meltwater lednian stoneflies. Since 2010, pp. J5, J24). Collection sites of habitat changes are based on observed publication of the proposed listing rule, western glacier stoneflies in GTNP are patterns of flow and water temperature the water diversion retrofit project has also relatively inaccessible to most in similar watersheds elsewhere where been redesigned to avoid any visitors. We conclude that impacts to glaciers have already melted. dewatering or instream work in the the meltwater lednian and western We have observed a declining trend in proposed section of Logan Creek glacier stonefly and their habitat from western glacier stonefly distribution (Aceituno 2017, pers. comm.). Thus, National Park visitors are not likely to over the last 50 years, as air this project is no longer expected to occur. temperatures have warmed in GNP. The impact meltwater lednian stoneflies, addition of newly reported populations and we no longer incorporate this Wilderness Area Visitor Impacts of western glacier stonefly provides project into our analysis. Three streams occupied by meltwater increased redundancy for the species We do not have any information lednian stonefly are located in across its range, bringing the total indicating that maintenance and wilderness areas adjacent to GNP, and number of known occupied streams to improvement of other GNP or GTNP six streams occupied by the western 13 (up from 4 occupied streams at the facilities and structures is affecting glacier stonefly are located in the time of publishing of the proposed rule). either meltwater lednian or western Absaroka/Beartooth Wilderness. Visitor However, the resiliency of all known glacier stoneflies or their habitat. While activities in wilderness areas are similar populations remains low because roads and trails provide avenues for to those described for National Parks, western glacier stonefly inhabit the most recreationists (primarily hikers) to namely hiking and angling. No upstream reaches of their meltwater access backcountry areas, most habitats recreational hiking trails are present habitats and cannot disperse further for both the meltwater lednian stonefly near the two streams occupied by upstream if water temperatures warm and the western glacier stonefly are meltwater lednian stonefly in the Bob beyond their thermal tolerances. We located in steep, rocky areas that are not Marshall Wilderness and Great Bear expect the meltwater lednian stonefly to easily accessible, even from backcountry Wilderness (USFS 2015, p. 1) or near follow a similar trajectory, given the trails. Most documented occurrences of the stream occurring in the Mission similarities between the two stonefly both species are in remote locations Mountain Tribal Wilderness. There are species and their meltwater habitats. upstream from human-built structures, several hiking trails near streams Consequently, we conclude that habitat thereby precluding any impacts to occupied by the western glacier stonefly fragmentation and degradation resulting stonefly habitat from maintenance or in the Absaroka/Beartooth Wilderness. from climate change are significantly improvement of these structures. Given Similar to the National Parks, stream affecting both the meltwater lednian and the above information, we conclude that reaches that harbor the meltwater western glacier stoneflies now and into maintenance and improvement of lednian stonefly and the western glacier the future. Given the minimal overlap National Park facilities and structures, stonefly in these wilderness areas are between stonefly habitat and most and the resulting improved access into likely fishless due to the high gradient, existing infrastructure or backcountry the backcountry for recreationists, are so wade anglers are not expected to activities (e.g., hiking), we conclude any unlikely to affect meltwater lednian or disturb stonefly habitat. Given the impacts from these activities on either western glacier stonefly or their habitat. remote nature of and limited access to the meltwater lednian stonefly or the meltwater stonefly and western glacier National Park Visitor Impacts western glacier stonefly are low. stonefly habitat in wilderness areas, we In 2015, GNP hosted 2.3 million do not anticipate any current or future Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or visitors (NPS 2015, entire) and, in 2016, threats to meltwater lednian stoneflies Educational Purposes GTNP hosted 4.8 million visitors (NPS or western glacier stoneflies or their 2016, entire). A few of the recent respective habitats from visitor use. We are not aware of any threats collection sites for the meltwater involving the overutilization or lednian stonefly (e.g., Logan and Summary of Factor A collection of the meltwater lednian or Reynolds Creeks in GNP) are more In summary, we expect climate western glacier stonefly for any accessible to the public or adjacent to change impacts to fragment or degrade commercial, recreational, or educational popular hiking trails in GNP and GTNP. all habitat types that are currently purposes at this time. We are aware that Theoretically, human activity (wading) occupied by meltwater lednian and specimens of both species are in streams by anglers or hikers could western glacier stoneflies, albeit at occasionally collected for scientific disturb meltwater lednian stonefly different rates. Flows in meltwater purposes to determine their distribution habitat. However, we consider it streams are expected to be affected first, and abundance (e.g., Baumann and unlikely that many National Park by becoming periodically intermittent Stewart 1980, pp. 655, 658; NPS 2009; visitors would actually wade in stream and warmer. Drying of meltwater Muhlfeld et al. 2011, entire; Giersch et habitats where the species has been streams and water temperature al. 2015, entire). However, both species collected, because the sites are in small, increases, even periodically, are are comparatively abundant in high-elevation streams situated in expected to reduce available habitat in remaining habitats (e.g., NPS 2009; rugged terrain, and most would not be GNP for the meltwater lednian stonefly Giersch 2016, pers. comm.), and we suitable for angling due to the absence by 81 percent by 2030. After 2030, flow have no information to suggest that past, of fish. In addition, the sites in GNP are reductions and water temperature current, or any collections in the near typically snow covered into late July or increases due to continued warming are future will result in population-level

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Nov 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM 21NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 64219

effects to either species. Consequently, species. A thorough analysis of existing potential to disproportionately affect we do not consider overutilization for regulatory mechanisms was carried out large numbers of individuals or commercial, recreational, scientific, or and described in the proposed listing populations, relative to a more widely educational purposes to be a threat to rule (81 FR 68379, October 4, 2016). No distributed species. A restricted range the meltwater lednian or western glacier local, State, or Federal laws specifically and stochastic events may have greater stonefly now or in the near future. protect the meltwater lednian or impacts on western glacier stonefly, compared to meltwater lednian stonefly, Factor C. Disease or Predation western glacier stonefly. because of considerably fewer We are not aware of any diseases that Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade populations. However, meltwater affect the meltwater lednian or western Factors Affecting Its Continued lednian stonefly is a narrow endemic as glacier stonefly. Therefore, we do not Existence well and may be at higher risk of consider disease to be a threat to these Small Population Size/Genetic Diversity random events when compared to a species now or in the near future. Small population size can increase more widely distributed species. The We presume that nymph and adult risk to meltwater lednian and western meltwater lednian and western glacier risk of extinction, if genetic diversity is not maintained (Fausch et al. 2006, p. glacier stoneflies from fire appears low, stoneflies may occasionally be subject to given that most alpine environments 23; Allendorf et al. 1997, entire). predation by bird species such as within the species’ habitats have few Genetic diversity in the meltwater American dipper (Cinclus mexicanus) trees and little vegetation to burn. The lednian stonefly is declining and lower or predatory aquatic insects. Fish and risk to both species from flooding also than that of two other stonefly species amphibians are not potential predators appears low, given the relatively small (Jordan et al. 2017, p. 9). Genetic because these species do not occur in watershed areas available to capture and diversity of western glacier stonefly is the stream reaches containing the channel precipitation upslope of most lower than other species in the Zapada meltwater lednian stonefly and the stonefly occurrences. western glacier stonefly. The American genus sampled in GNP (Giersch et al. The risk to the meltwater lednian dipper prefers to feed on aquatic 2015, p. 63). It is presumed that low stonefly from drought appears moderate invertebrates in fast-moving, clear genetic diversity in meltwater lednian in the near term because 59 of 113 alpine streams, and the species is native stoneflies and western glacier stoneflies occupied streams are supplied by to GNP. As such, predation by American is linked to small effective population seasonal or perennial snowmelt, which dipper on these species would represent sizes and population isolation (Jordan et would be expected to decline first a natural ecological interaction in the al. 2017, p. 9; Giersch et al. 2015, p. 63). during drought. For the western glacier GNP (see Synergistic Effects section Population isolation can limit or stonefly, the threat of drought is also below for analysis on potential preclude genetic exchange between moderate because 6 of 16 occupied predation/habitat fragmentation populations (Hotaling et al. 2017, p. 9; streams are likely to be affected by synergy). Similarly, predation by other Fausch et al. 2006, p. 8). However, it is variations in seasonal precipitation and aquatic insects would represent a unclear how far into the future snowpack. The risk of drought in the natural ecological interaction between population-level effects from loss of longer term (after 2030 and when the species. We have no evidence that genetic diversity may appear in the complete loss of glaciers is projected) the extent of such predation, if it occurs, meltwater lednian and western glacier appears high for both stonefly species. represents any population-level threat to stonefly. Loss of genetic diversity is Once glaciers melt, drought or extended either meltwater lednian or western typically not an immediate threat even drought could result in dewatering glacier stonefly, especially given that in isolated populations with small events in some habitats. Dewatering densities of individuals within many of effective population sizes (Palstra and events would likely extirpate entire these populations are high. Therefore, Ruzzante 2008, p. 3441), but rather is a populations almost instantaneously. we do not consider predation to be a symptom of deterministic processes Natural recolonization of habitats threat to these species now or in the acting on the population (Jamieson and affected by drought is unlikely, given near future. In summary, the best Allendorf 2012, p. 580). In other words, the presumed poor dispersal abilities of available scientific and commercial loss of genetic diversity due to small both stonefly species and general information does not indicate that the effective population size typically does isolation of populations relative to one meltwater lednian or western glacier not drive species to extinction (Jamieson another (Hauer et al. 2007, pp. 108– stonefly is affected by any diseases, or and Allendorf 2012, entire); other 110). Thus, we conclude that drought (a that natural predation occurs at levels processes, such as habitat degradation, stochastic event) will be a threat to both likely to negatively affect either species have a more immediate and greater the meltwater lednian stonefly and the at the population level. Therefore, we impact on species persistence (Jamieson western glacier stonefly in the future. do not find disease or predation to be and Allendorf 2012). We acknowledge Summary of Factor E threats to the meltwater lednian or that loss of genetic diversity can occur western glacier stonefly now or in the in small populations; however, in this The effect of small population size near future. case, it appears that projected effects to and loss of genetic diversity does not habitat are the primary threat to both appear to be having immediate impacts Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing stonefly species, not a loss of genetic on the meltwater lednian stonefly or the Regulatory Mechanisms diversity that may take many years to western glacier stonefly, given the high Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Endangered manifest. densities of individuals within many Species Act requires the Service to take streams and that potential effects from into account ‘‘those efforts, if any, being Restricted Range and Stochastic loss of genetic diversity would likely made by any State or foreign nation, or (Random) Events occur beyond the timeframe in which any political subdivision of a State or Narrow endemic species can be at risk habitat-related threats are expected to foreign nation, to protect such species. of extirpation from random events such occur. However, the restricted range of . . .’’ We consider relevant Federal, as fire, flooding, or drought. Random the meltwater lednian and western State, and Tribal laws and regulations events occurring within the narrow glacier stonefly make both species when evaluating the status of the range of endemic species have the vulnerable to the stochastic threat of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Nov 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM 21NOR1 64220 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

drought, which is expected to negatively 4. We incorporated information on habitat may be not prudent, and we affect both species within the future. site-specific differences in geology, have determined that a designation of glacial persistence, and stonefly density critical habitat for these species is not Summary of Changes From the between GNP and GTNP. This prudent, as discussed further below. Proposed Rule information clarified differences in Summary of Comments and Based on information received during habitat and stonefly density across the the peer review process and public range of the western glacier stonefly and Recommendations comment periods, we made the was incorporated into our analysis In the proposed rule published on following substantive changes (listed under Factor A. October 4, 2016 (81 FR 68379), we below) to the Background portion of the 5. We updated literature citations requested that all interested parties preamble to this final listing rule. In throughout Factors A and E. We submit written comments on the addition, we have added species- updated several pieces of literature that proposal by December 5, 2016. We also specific provisions to 50 CFR 17.47 as were originally cited as unpublished contacted appropriate Federal and State a result of new rulemaking actions that reports, but were subsequently agencies, scientific experts and pertain to the listing of threatened published in scientific journals after the organizations, and other interested species; these rulemaking actions and proposed listing rule published in the parties and invited them to comment on the subsequent additions to this rule are Federal Register. We incorporated one the proposal. Newspaper notices described in section II of the preamble study on meltwater lednian stonefly inviting general public comment were (see below), and the regulatory genetics that was not cited in the published in the Kalispell InterLake, provisions are set forth at the end of this proposed rule (Jordan et al. 2017) in Great Falls Tribune, Bozeman document in the rule language. The Factor E. We also incorporated two Chronicle, Billings Gazette, and Jackson prohibitions provided under this 4(d) additional studies (Clark et al. 2015; Hole News and Guide. On October 31, rule do not differ from those proposed Leppi et al. 2012) on the projected 2017, we reopened the comment period for the species; however, the manner in effects of climate change on stream on our proposed listing rule to allow the which they are implemented (via a runoff in Factor A. public to comment on new information species-specific rule rather than 6. We clarified minor inaccuracies regarding the known distribution of referring to the ‘‘blanket’’ rule at 50 CFR related to stonefly distribution and western glacier stonefly (82 FR 50360). 17.31) has changed. dispersal capability. This included We did not receive any requests for a 1. We incorporated new distribution clarifying areas of uncertainty. public hearing. All substantive information for the meltwater lednian 7. We incorporated potential effects of information provided during both stonefly and western glacier stonefly. population isolation into our analysis of comment periods has either been This information became available to us Factor E. We added a paragraph incorporated directly into this final after the proposed listing rule was discussing the potential effects of determination or addressed below. published and included a small range population isolation and reduced expansion for the meltwater lednian genetic diversity on stonefly viability. Peer Reviewer Comments stonefly (southwestern Alberta, Canada) 8. We changed the terminology used In accordance with our peer review and large range expansion for western to describe the distribution of the two glacier stonefly of about 500 km (311 species. We used the term policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR mi) south from their previously known ‘‘populations’’ in the proposed listing 34270), we solicited expert opinion range, to now include multiple streams rule to reference groups of stoneflies in from seven knowledgeable individuals in GTNP in Wyoming and the Absaroka/ certain areas that we believed likely with scientific expertise that included Beartooth Wilderness in Montana. This constituted an interbreeding population. familiarity with stoneflies and their new information updated the number of However, there is no empirical evidence habitat, biological needs, and threats. known streams occupied by western to support the use of the term We received responses from three of the glacier stonefly from 4 to 16. This ‘‘population,’’ so we now refer instead peer reviewers. information was incorporated into the to the number of distinct streams that We reviewed all comments received analyses under Factors A and E. are occupied by both stonefly species from the peer reviewers for substantive 2. We incorporated genetics when discussing their distribution and issues and new information regarding information from a new study by current and future status. The the listing of meltwater lednian stonefly Hotaling et al. 2017. This new study terminology change was incorporated and western glacier stonefly. The peer confirmed through genetic analysis that into our analyses under Factors A and reviewers generally concurred with our the western glacier stonefly was present E. methods and conclusions and provided in multiple streams in GTNP in 9. We reevaluated whether critical additional information, clarifications, Wyoming and the Absaroka/Beartooth habitat for both stonefly species is and suggestions to improve the final Wilderness in Montana. This prudent. Our October 4, 2016, proposed rule. Peer reviewer comments are information represents the most current rule included a determination that addressed in the following summary assessment of genetic information for critical habitat for the meltwater lednian and incorporated into this final rule as western glacier and meltwater lednian stonefly and western glacier stonefly appropriate. stonefly and was not available when the was prudent but not determinable at (1) Comment: Several peer reviewers proposed listing rule was published. that time (81 FR 68379). Since that time, noted that new genetics information This new information was incorporated the Service finalized regulations related (i.e., Hotaling et al. 2017) for meltwater into the analyses under Factors A and to listing species and designating lednian and western glacier stoneflies E. critical habitat (84 FR 45020, August 27, was now available that was not 3. We incorporated information on 2019), which revised the regulations available when the proposed listing rule how rock glaciers might respond to that implement section 4 of the Act and was published. climate change under Factor A. Rock clarify circumstances in which critical Our Response: We are aware of the glaciers are debris-covered glaciers that habitat may be found not prudent. genetic analysis by Hotaling et al., and are expected to melt more slowly than Regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) we have fully incorporated their normal glaciers. provide the circumstances when critical findings and conclusions into this final

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Nov 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM 21NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 64221

listing rule in the Factors A and E number of occupied streams translated the species survive catastrophic events. analyses. to the number of stonefly populations. However, the primary threat to western (2) Comment: One peer reviewer Our Response: We deleted any glacier stonefly habitat is habitat noted that at least one stream occupied reference to a specific number of degradation and fragmentation from by western glacier stonefly originates stonefly populations in the final listing climate change. We expect climate from a rock glacier. Since rock glaciers rule. Instead, we report the number of change to have similar, negative effects are covered by debris, their rate of streams known to be occupied by on western glacier stonefly habitat melting may differ from those glaciers meltwater lednian and western glacier rangewide. Thus, increased redundancy, not covered by debris. The reviewer stoneflies. This approach is consistent in this case, is not expected to translate suggested we add a brief description of with the terminology and methodology into increased resiliency or increased this potential phenomenon. used in Giersch et al. 2017, which is the species viability. In addition, we must Our Response: We added a paragraph best available science on the status and base our listing determination on the to this final listing rule discussing this distribution of both stonefly species. best available scientific and commercial phenomenon and its implications for These changes were made in information, and we have no western glacier stonefly habitat in our Background and in our Factors A and E information that western glacier stonefly Factor A analyses. analyses. occur in other areas than where the (3) Comment: One peer reviewer Comments From States species is currently known. noted that the Service did not consider Public Comments differences in geology, glacial (8) Comment: A comment from one persistence, and stonefly density State expressed concern that the genetic (10) Comment: One public commenter between GNP and GTNP in the information on western glacier stonefly noted an interest in seeing more proposed rule. relied upon in the proposed listing rule information obtained and reviewed in Our Response: We made several was incomplete. The State provided regard to obtaining a better clarifications and added information on evidence that a more robust genetic understanding of the true extent of the suggested topics in this final listing analysis was under way, the results stonefly habitat, the consequences of rule in our Factor A analyses. (contained in Hotaling et al. 2017) of these species being listed on GNP’s (4) Comment: Several peer reviewers which would aid in highlighting the visitation and infrastructure, and what noted that newer literature citations distinctness or relatedness among measures may be taken on a local level were available to support statements western glacier stoneflies across their to help these species survive and grow made in the proposed listing rule with known range. in order to prevent economic and other regard to stonefly genetics and Our Response: We were aware of the hardships that come with listing. population isolation. ongoing genetic analysis by Hotaling et Our Response: According to the Act, Our Response: We incorporated the al., and now that the results are we must base our determination on the newer literature citations (i.e., Giersch available, we have fully incorporated best available scientific information. We 2017, pers. comm.; Giersch et al. 2015; their findings/conclusions into the final included the results of the most recent Giersch et al. 2017; Jordan et al. 2017; listing rule in our Factors A and E status review of meltwater lednian and Hotaling et al. 2017) and updated all analyses. western glacier stonefly (i.e., Giersch et stonefly occurrence data with the most (9) Comment: One State provided the al. 2017) in this final listing rule in our current information from Giersch et al. results of a recent genetics study Factor A analyses. The Service is not 2017 in Background and our Factors A (Hotaling et al. 2017) that confirmed allowed to consider economic impacts and E analyses. western glacier stonefly presence in in our determination on whether to list (5) Comment: Several peer reviewers GTNP and the Absaroka/Beartooth a species under the Act. However, we noted inaccuracies in the proposed Wilderness. The State did not support believe that those impacts would be listing rule in regard to how the Service listing the western glacier stonefly. minimal, given the limited overlap of described stonefly distribution and Based on the results of the provided stonefly habitats with areas of visitor dispersal capability. information that the species was more use and park infrastructure. Our Response: We clarified areas of widespread than previously believed, Conservation measures are addressed in uncertainty with respect to stonefly the State suggested this information this document below under ‘‘Available distribution and dispersal capability. could indicate the species is likely Conservation Measures.’’ The Service also added several present in more areas to the north and (11) Comment: One commenter clarifying statements on stonefly south of where it is currently known. expressed support for listing both distribution to highlight areas of Our Response: We incorporated the stonefly species and provided a link to uncertainty in Background and our results of Hotaling et al. 2017 into this a scientific journal article describing a Factors A and E analyses. final listing rule. A review of satellite 75 percent decline in winged insects in (6) Comment: One peer reviewer imagery indicates there may be some Germany over the past 27 years. noted that the Service did not fully patches of permanent snow/ice (and Our Response: The scientific account for the potential effects of thus potential western glacier stonefly information in the provided journal population isolation in our threats habitat) in the Wyoming and Wind article indicates a long-term decline in analysis. River ranges of Wyoming, south of a suite of winged insects in Germany. Our Response: We added a paragraph Grand Teton National Park. However, However, the insects in this study did on the potential effects of population we are not aware of any surveys that not have an aquatic life-history isolation, including recent genetics have been conducted in that area. The component like both meltwater lednian information from Jordan et al. 2017, in USGS has sampled in some areas stonefly and western glacier stonefly, our Factor E analyses. between Grand Teton National Park/ and occupied much different habitat (7) Comment: Several peer reviewers Beartooth and Glacier National Park, but types. Further, climate variables were noted that we used the term have not documented western glacier not found to be significant drivers of the ‘‘population’’ in the proposed listing stoneflies in that area. An increase in documented insect biomass decline. rule, but that it was never defined or western glacier stonefly redundancy Thus, we did not find the results from there was no explanation of how the across their range is expected to help the provided study informative to trend

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Nov 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM 21NOR1 64222 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

observations of stoneflies. Therefore, we by several factors that are expected to from climate change are currently did not include information from the reduce the overall viability of the affecting habitat for the meltwater provided study in our assessment of species to the point that it meets the lednian stonefly and the western glacier either stonefly species. Rather, we definition of a threatened species. stonefly (Factor A). Most glaciers in considered studies specific to meltwater Therefore, on the basis of the best GNP are expected to melt by 2030, lednian stonefly, western glacier available scientific and commercial based on past empirical melting rates stonefly, and other more closely related information, we are listing the and projections of future air temperature species in similar geographic areas to be meltwater lednian stonefly and western increases in a region that is warming at the best available scientific information glacier stonefly as threatened species in 1.8 times the global rate. Habitat with a on which to base our assessment. accordance with sections 3(6) and high probability of occupancy for the (12) Comment: Two joint commenters 4(a)(1) of the Act. meltwater lednian stonefly is modeled expressed support for listing both We find that an endangered species to decrease 81 percent by 2030 stonefly species and provided multiple status is not appropriate for the (Muhlfeld et al. 2011, p. 342). Drought scientific journal articles for the Service meltwater lednian stonefly because the is also expected to affect habitat to assess. species is not currently in danger of occupied by meltwater lednian stonefly Our Response: Of the 10 scientific extinction as it faces relatively low near- and western glacier stonefly that is articles provided, 3 (Jordan et al. 2016; term risk of extinction. Although the supplied by those meltwater sources Giersch et al. 2016; Treanor et al. 2013) effects of climate change and drought (Factor E). These threats and responses were already included and cited in the are currently affecting, and expected to are reasonably foreseeable because some proposed listing rule. Three of the other continue affecting, the alpine habitats are already evident and we have no articles provided (Hotaling et al. 2017a; occupied by the meltwater lednian indication that the rate of climate Clark et al. 2015; Leppi et al. 2012) were stonefly, meltwater sources are expected change will slow within the foreseeable added to the final listing rule in our to persist in the form of alpine springs future. As a result of this anticipated Factors A and E analyses. The and glacial lake outlets after the loss of habitat, only a few refugia remaining four articles (Hotaling et al. projected melting of most glaciers in streams and springs are expected to 2017b; Wuebbles et al. 2017; Chang and GNP by 2030. Densities and estimated persist in the longer term. Hansen 2015; Al-Chokhacky et al. 2013) abundance of the meltwater lednian Recolonization of habitats where known were broad in nature (large-scale climate stonefly are currently relatively high. In occurrences of either species are information relevant to other addition, some habitats that are extirpated is not anticipated, given the ecosystems and species) and were not supplied by seasonal snowpack presumed poor dispersal abilities of included in the final listing rule because continue to be occupied by meltwater both species. Thus, after assessing the we had finer scale information more lednian stonefly. These findings suggest best available information, we conclude relevant to western glacier stonefly and that, as climate change continues to that meltwater lednian stonefly and the meltwater lednian stonefly and their impact stonefly habitat, some western glacier stonefly are not habitats. populations will likely persist in refugia currently in danger of extinction, but are areas at least through the foreseeable likely to become in danger of extinction Determination of Western Glacier future. within the foreseeable future throughout Stonefly and Meltwater Lednian We also find that an endangered all of their ranges. Stonefly Status species status is not appropriate for the Status Throughout a Significant Portion Status Throughout All of Its Range western glacier stonefly because the species is not currently in danger of of Its Range We find that the meltwater lednian extinction as it faces relatively low near- Under the Act and our implementing stonefly is likely to become endangered term risk of extinction. Although the regulations, a species may warrant throughout all of its range within the effects of climate change and drought listing if it is in danger of extinction or foreseeable future. The meltwater are currently affecting, and expected to likely to become so in the foreseeable lednian stonefly occupies a relatively continue affecting, the alpine habitats future throughout all or a significant narrow range of alpine habitats that are occupied by the western glacier portion of its range. Where the best expected to become fragmented and stonefly, meltwater sources are expected available information allows the degraded by climate change, based on to persist in the form of alpine springs Services to determine a status for the empirical glacier melting rates. and glacial lake outlets after the species rangewide, that determination Meltwater stonefly habitat is likely to be projected melting of most glaciers in should be given conclusive weight impacted by several factors that are GNP by 2030. Although only 16 streams because a rangewide determination of expected to reduce the overall viability are known to be occupied by western status more accurately reflects the of the species to the point that it meets glacier stonefly, densities and estimated species’ degree of imperilment and the definition of a threatened species. abundance of the western glacier better promotes the purposes of the Act. We also find that the western glacier stonefly are currently relatively high in Under this reading, we should first stonefly is likely to become endangered many streams. These findings suggest consider whether the species warrants throughout all of its range within the that, as climate change continues to listing ‘‘throughout all’’ of its range and foreseeable future. Similar to meltwater impact stonefly habitat, some proceed to conduct a ‘‘significant lednian stonefly, the western glacier populations will likely persist in refugia portion of its range’’ analysis if, and stonefly occupies a relatively narrow areas at least through the foreseeable only if, a species does not qualify for range of alpine habitats that are future. listing as either an endangered or a expected to become fragmented and After evaluating threats to the species threatened species according to the degraded by climate change, based on and assessing the cumulative effect of ‘‘throughout all’’ language. We note that empirical glacier melting rates. In the threats under the section 4(a)(1) the court in Desert Survivors v. addition, decreasing distribution of factors, we have determined that habitat Department of the Interior, No. 16–cv– western glacier stonefly has been fragmentation and degradation in the 01165–JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. documented in GNP. Western glacier form of declining streamflows and Aug. 24, 2018), did not address this stonefly habitat is likely to be impacted increasing water temperatures resulting issue, and our conclusion is therefore

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Nov 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM 21NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 64223

consistent with the opinion in that case. used to develop a recovery plan. whenever it becomes available and any Because we have determined that the Revisions of the plan may be done to information you may have for recovery meltwater lednian stonefly and the address continuing or new threats to the planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER western glacier stonefly are likely to species, as new substantive information INFORMATION CONTACT). become an endangered species within becomes available. The recovery plan Section 7(a) of the Act requires the foreseeable future throughout all of identifies site-specific management Federal agencies to evaluate their their ranges, we find it unnecessary to actions that set a trigger for review of actions with respect to any species that proceed to an evaluation of potentially the five factors that control whether a is listed as an endangered or threatened significant portions of the range. species remains endangered or may be species and with respect to its critical downlisted or delisted, and methods for Determination of Status habitat, if any is designated. Regulations monitoring recovery progress. Recovery implementing this interagency Our review of the best available plans also establish a framework for cooperation provision of the Act are scientific and commercial information agencies to coordinate their recovery codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section indicates that the meltwater lednian efforts and provide estimates of the cost 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal stonefly and the western glacier stonefly of implementing recovery tasks. agencies to ensure that activities they meet the definition of threatened Recovery teams (composed of species authorize, fund, or carry out are not species. Therefore, we are listing the experts, Federal and State agencies, likely to jeopardize the continued meltwater lednian stonefly and the nongovernmental organizations, and existence of any endangered or western glacier stonefly as threatened stakeholders) are often established to threatened species or destroy or species in accordance with sections develop recovery plans. When adversely modify its critical habitat. If a 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. completed, the recovery outline, draft Federal action may affect a listed Available Conservation Measures recovery plan, and the final recovery species or its critical habitat, the plan will be available on our website responsible Federal agency must enter Conservation measures provided to (http://www.fws.gov/endangered) or into consultation with the Service. species listed as endangered or from our Montana Ecological Services Federal agency actions within the threatened species under the Act Field Office (see FOR FURTHER species’ habitat that may require include recognition, recovery actions, INFORMATION CONTACT). conference or consultation or both as requirements for Federal protection, and Implementation of recovery actions described in the preceding paragraph prohibitions against certain practices. generally requires the participation of a include management and any other Recognition through listing results in broad range of partners, including other landscape-altering activities on Federal public awareness and conservation by Federal agencies, States, Tribal, lands administered by the U.S. Forest Federal, State, Tribal, and local nongovernmental organizations, Service (Flathead and Custer/Gallatin agencies, private organizations, and businesses, and private landowners. National Forests) and NPS (GNP, individuals. The Act encourages Examples of recovery actions include GTNP); issuance of section 404 Clean cooperation with the States and requires habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of Water Act permits by the Army Corps of that recovery actions be carried out for native vegetation), research, captive Engineers; and construction and all listed species. The protection propagation and reintroduction, and maintenance of roads or highways by required by Federal agencies and the outreach and education. The recovery of the Federal Highway Administration. prohibitions against certain activities many listed species cannot be It is our policy, as published in the are discussed, in part, below. accomplished solely on Federal lands The primary purpose of the Act is the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR because their range may occur primarily 34272), to identify to the maximum conservation of endangered and or solely on non-Federal lands. To threatened species and the ecosystems extent practicable at the time a species achieve recovery of these species is listed, those activities that would or upon which they depend. The ultimate requires cooperative conservation efforts goal of such conservation efforts is the would not constitute a violation of on private, State, and Tribal lands. section 9 of the Act. The intent of this recovery of these listed species, so that Following publication of this final they no longer need the protective policy is to increase public awareness of listing rule, funding for recovery actions the effect of a listing on proposed and measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of will be available from a variety of ongoing activities within the range of the Act requires the Service to develop sources, including Federal budgets, the species being listed. The discussion and implement recovery plans for the State programs, and cost share grants for below about the 4(d) rule complies with conservation of endangered and non-Federal landowners, the academic our policy. threatened species. The recovery community, and nongovernmental planning process involves the organizations. In addition, pursuant to II. Final Rule Issued Under Section 4(d) identification of actions that are section 6 of the Act, the State(s) of of the Act necessary to halt or reverse the species’ Montana and Wyoming will be eligible Background decline by addressing the threats to its for Federal funds to implement survival and recovery. The goal of this management actions that promote the Section 4(d) of the Act states that the process is to restore listed species to a protection or recovery of the meltwater ‘‘Secretary shall issue such regulations point where they are secure, self- lednian stonefly and/or western glacier as he deems necessary and advisable to sustaining, and functioning components stonefly. Information on our grant provide for the conservation’’ of species of their ecosystems. programs that are available to aid listed as threatened. The U.S. Supreme Recovery planning includes the species recovery can be found at: http:// Court has noted that very similar development of a recovery outline www.fws.gov/grants. statutory language demonstrates a large within 30 days of when the species is Please let us know if you are degree of deference to the agency (see listed and preparation of a draft and interested in participating in recovery Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988)). final recovery plan. The recovery efforts for the meltwater lednian Conservation is defined in the Act to outline guides the immediate stonefly and western glacier stonefly. mean ‘‘the use of all methods and implementation of urgent recovery Additionally, we invite you to submit procedures which are necessary to bring actions and describes the process to be any new information on these species any endangered species or threatened

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Nov 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM 21NOR1 64224 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

species to the point at which the 4(d) rule for each species that we stoneflies, including: Trail construction measures provided pursuant to [the Act] determine meets the definition of a and maintenance, road maintenance and are no longer necessary.’’ Additionally, threatened species. In the preamble to repair, etc. Regulating these activities section 4(d) of the Act states that the our 2016 proposed rule, we determined may help preserve the species’ Secretary ‘‘may by regulation prohibit that a rule that included the remaining populations, slow its rate of with respect to any threatened species prohibitions set forth in 50 CFR 17.21 decline, and decrease synergistic, any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1), for endangered species would be negative effects from other stressors. in the case of fish or wildlife, or section necessary and advisable for the Under the Act, ‘‘take’’ means to 9(a)(2), in the case of plants.’’ Thus, conservation of the meltwater lednian harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, regulations promulgated under section stonefly and the western glacier wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or 4(d) of the Act provide the Secretary stonefly. Consequently, we are to attempt to engage in any such with wide latitude of discretion to select promulgating a species-specific 4(d) rule conduct. Some of these provisions have appropriate provisions tailored to the that outlines the protections that were been further defined in regulation at 50 specific conservation needs of the described in the 2016 proposed rule; see CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or threatened species. The statute grants Provisions of the 4(d) Rule, below. otherwise, by direct and indirect particularly broad discretion to the Although the statute does not require impacts, intentionally or incidentally. Service when adopting the prohibitions the Service to make a ‘‘necessary and Regulating incidental and intentional under section 9. advisable’’ finding with respect to the take may reduce effects to individual The courts have recognized the extent adoption of specific prohibitions under stonefly life stages comprising the of the Secretary’s discretion under this section 9, we find that this rule as a species’ remaining populations. standard to develop rules that are whole satisfies the requirement in We may issue permits to carry out appropriate for the conservation of a section 4(d) of the Act to issue otherwise prohibited activities, species. For example, courts have regulations deemed necessary and including those described above, approved rules developed under section advisable to provide for the involving threatened wildlife under 4(d) that include a taking prohibition for conservation of the meltwater lednian certain circumstances. Regulations threatened wildlife, or include a limited stonefly and the western glacier governing permits are codified at 50 taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley stonefly. As discussed under Summary CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 U.S. of Biological Status and Threats, the wildlife, a permit may be issued for the Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); Service has concluded that the following purposes: Scientific purposes, Washington Environmental Council v. meltwater lednian stonefly and the to enhance propagation or survival, for National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 western glacier stonefly are at risk of economic hardship, for zoological U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D. Wash. extinction within the foreseeable future exhibition, for educational purposes, for 2002)). Courts have also approved 4(d) due to loss of habitat due to glacier incidental taking, or for special rules that do not address all of the melting. The provisions of this species- purposes consistent with the purposes threats a species faces (see State of specific 4(d) rule would promote of the Act. There are also certain Louisiana v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th conservation of the meltwater lednian statutory exemptions from the Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative stonefly and the western glacier stonefly prohibitions, which are found in history when the Act was initially by prohibiting take of both species. The sections 9 and 10 of the Act. enacted, ‘‘once an animal is on the provisions of this rule are one of many The Service recognizes the special threatened list, the Secretary has an tools that the Service would use to and unique relationship with our State almost infinite number of options promote the conservation of the natural resource agency partners in available to him with regard to the meltwater lednian stonefly and the contributing to conservation of listed permitted activities for those species. He western glacier stonefly. species. State agencies often possess may, for example, permit taking, but not scientific data and valuable expertise on Provisions of the 4(d) Rule importation of such species, or he may the status and distribution of choose to forbid both taking and This 4(d) rule will provide for the endangered, threatened, and candidate importation but allow the transportation conservation of the western glacier species of wildlife and plants. State of such species,’’ (H.R. Rep. No. 412, stonefly and meltwater lednian stonefly agencies, because of their authorities 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973). by prohibiting the following activities, and their close working relationships In our proposed rule to list the except as otherwise authorized or with local governments and meltwater lednian stonefly and the permitted: Importing or exporting; take; landowners, are in a unique position to western glacier stonefly published on possession and other acts with assist the Services in implementing all October 4, 2016 (81 FR 68379), we unlawfully taken specimens; delivering, aspects of the Act. In this regard, section referenced a section of the regulation receiving, transporting, or shipping in 6 of the Act provides that the Services that provided threatened species with interstate or foreign commerce in the shall cooperate to the maximum extent the same protections as endangered course of commercial activity; or selling practicable with the States in carrying species also known as ‘‘blanket rules’’ or offering for sale in interstate or out programs authorized by the Act. (50 CFR 17.31). The Service has since foreign commerce. Therefore, any qualified employee or published regulations on August 27, As discussed under Summary of agent of a State conservation agency that 2019 (84 FR 44753), amending 50 CFR Biological Status and Threats (above), is a party to a cooperative agreement 17.31 and 17.71 that state ‘‘the blanket degraded habitats resulting from with the Service in accordance with rules will no longer be in place, but the reduced flows and increased water section 6(c) of the Act, who is Secretary will still be required to make temperatures (Factor A) are affecting the designated by his or her agency for such a decision about what regulations to put status of the meltwater lednian stonefly purposes, would be able to conduct in place for the species.’’ While the and the western glacier stonefly. Some activities designed to conserve western Service always had the ability to activities could occur within the range glacier stonefly and meltwater lednian promulgate species-specific 4(d) rules of the species that have the potential to stonefly that may result in otherwise for threatened species, moving forward impact individual meltwater lednian prohibited take without additional we will promulgate a species-specific stoneflies and the western glacier authorization. The State of Montana

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Nov 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM 21NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 64225

covers the meltwater lednian stonefly extraordinary case where population such as patch size, distribution and the western glacier stonefly in pressures within a given ecosystem distances, and connectivity. Montana’s State Wildlife Action Plan cannot be otherwise relieved, may Under the second prong of the Act’s (Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks include regulated taking. definition of critical habitat, we can 2015, p. 439). Critical habitat receives protection designate critical habitat in areas Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule under section 7(a)(2) of the Act through outside the geographical area occupied would change in any way the recovery the requirement that Federal agencies by the species at the time it is listed, planning provisions of section 4(f) of the ensure, in consultation with the Service, upon a determination that such areas Act, the consultation requirements that any action they authorize, fund, or are essential for the conservation of the under section 7 of the Act, or the ability carry out is not likely to result in the species. When designating critical of the Service to enter into partnerships destruction or adverse modification of habitat, the Secretary will first evaluate for the management and protection of critical habitat. The designation of areas occupied by the species. The the western glacier stonefly and critical habitat does not affect land Secretary will only consider unoccupied meltwater lednian stonefly. However, ownership or establish a refuge, areas to be essential where a critical interagency cooperation may be further wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other habitat designation limited to streamlined through planned conservation area. Such designation geographical areas occupied by the programmatic consultations for the does not allow the government or public species would be inadequate to ensure species between Federal agencies and to access private lands. Such the conservation of the species. In the Service. designation does not require addition, for an unoccupied area to be implementation of restoration, recovery, III. Critical Habitat considered essential, the Secretary must or enhancement measures by non- determine that there is a reasonable Background Federal landowners. Where a landowner certainty both that the area will requests Federal agency funding or contribute to the conservation of the Critical habitat is defined in section 3 authorization for an action that may of the Act as: species and that the area contains one affect a listed species or critical habitat, or more of those physical or biological (1) The specific areas within the the consultation requirements of section geographical area occupied by the features essential to the conservation of 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even the species. species, at the time it is listed in in the event of a destruction or adverse Section 4 of the Act requires that we accordance with the Act, on which are modification finding, the obligation of designate critical habitat on the basis of found those physical or biological the Federal action agency and the the best scientific data available. features landowner is not to restore or recover Further, our Policy on Information (a) Essential to the conservation of the the species, but to implement Standards under the Endangered species, and reasonable and prudent alternatives to (b) Which may require special avoid destruction or adverse Species Act (published in the Federal management considerations or modification of critical habitat. Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), protection; and Under the first prong of the Act’s the Information Quality Act (section 515 (2) Specific areas outside the definition of critical habitat, areas of the Treasury and General geographical area occupied by the within the geographical area occupied Government Appropriations Act for species at the time it is listed, upon a by the species at the time it was listed Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. determination that such areas are are included in a critical habitat 5658)), and our associated Information essential for the conservation of the designation if they contain physical or Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, species. biological features (1) which are establish procedures, and provide Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 essential to the conservation of the guidance to ensure that our decisions define the geographical area occupied species and (2) which may require are based on the best scientific data by the species as an area that may special management considerations or available. They require our biologists, to generally be delineated around species’ protection. For these areas, critical the extent consistent with the Act and occurrences, as determined by the habitat designations identify, to the with the use of the best scientific data Secretary (i.e., range). Such areas may extent known using the best scientific available, to use primary and original include those areas used throughout all and commercial data available, those sources of information as the basis for or part of the species’ life cycle, even if physical or biological features that are recommendations to designate critical not used on a regular basis (e.g., essential to the conservation of the habitat. migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, species (such as space, food, cover, and Prudency Determination and habitats used periodically, but not protected habitat). In identifying those solely by vagrant individuals). physical or biological features that occur Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as Conservation, as defined under in specific areas, we focus on the amended, and implementing regulations section 3 of the Act, means to use and specific features that are essential to (50 CFR 424.12), require that the the use of all methods and procedures support the life-history needs of the Secretary shall designate critical habitat that are necessary to bring an species, including, but not limited to, at the time the species is determined to endangered or threatened species to the water characteristics, soil type, be an endangered species or threatened point at which the measures provided geological features, prey, vegetation, species to the maximum extent prudent pursuant to the Act are no longer symbiotic species, or other features. A and determinable. Our regulations (50 necessary. Such methods and feature may be a single habitat CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the procedures include, but are not limited characteristic, or a more complex Secretary may, but is not required to, to, all activities associated with combination of habitat characteristics. determine that a designation would not scientific resources management such as Features may include habitat be prudent in the following research, census, law enforcement, characteristics that support ephemeral circumstances: habitat acquisition and maintenance, or dynamic habitat conditions. Features (i) The species is threatened by taking propagation, live trapping, and may also be expressed in terms relating or other human activity and transplantation, and, in the to principles of conservation biology, identification of critical habitat can be

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Nov 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM 21NOR1 64226 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

expected to increase the degree of such these areas (see Habitat and Factor A with tribes in developing programs for threat to the species; discussions above), we found no other healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that (ii) The present or threatened habitat-based threats to either species. tribal lands are not subject to the same destruction, modification, or There are no management actions controls as Federal public lands, to curtailment of a species’ habitat or range resulting from consultations under remain sensitive to Indian culture, and is not a threat to the species, or threats section 7(a)(2) of the Act that could to make information available to tribes. to the species’ habitat stem solely from address the impacts of climate change As part of our responsibilities to causes that cannot be addressed through and drought on the meltwater sources communicate meaningfully and work management actions resulting from that supply the habitats for these species directly with Tribal Governments, we consultations under section 7(a)(2) of (see the Service’s May 14, 2008 informed the Confederated Kootenai the Act; Director’s Memo on Expectations for Salish Tribe of our intent to conduct a (iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of Consultations on Actions that Would status review on meltwater lednian the United States provide no more than Emit Greenhouse Gases, which notes stonefly, and solicited any information negligible conservation value, if any, for that section 7 consultation would not be the Tribe may have regarding the sole a species occurring primarily outside required to address impacts of a population of meltwater lednian the jurisdiction of the United States; facility’s greenhouse gas emissions). For stonefly occurring in Tribal wilderness (iv) No areas meet the definition of the meltwater lednian stonefly and on Confederated Kootenai Salish Tribe critical habitat; or western glacier stonefly, we find that land. The Tribe did not provide any (v) After analyzing the best scientific threats to the species’ habitat stem information in response to our request. data available, the Secretary otherwise solely from causes that cannot be determines that designation of critical addressed through management actions References Cited habitat would not be prudent. resulting from consultations on these In our proposed rule to list the species under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. A complete list of references cited in meltwater lednian stonefly and western Therefore, in accordance with 50 CFR this rulemaking is available on the glacier stonefly (81 FR 68379, October 4, 424.12(a)(1), we determine that critical internet at http://www.regulations.gov 2016), we determined that critical habitat is not prudent for the meltwater in Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2016–0086 habitat was prudent, but not lednian stonefly and western glacier and upon request from the Montana determinable at that time. That stonefly. Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR determination regarding prudency was FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). based on our regulations (50 CFR Required Determinations Authors 424.12(a)(1)) as they existed at that time National Environmental Policy Act (42 in 2016. Since that time, the Service U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) The primary authors of this final rule published regulations related to listing are the staff members of the Montana species and designating critical habitat We have determined that Ecological Services Office. (84 FR 45020, August 27, 2019), which environmental assessments and revised the regulations that implement environmental impact statements, as List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 section 4 of the Act and clarify defined under the authority of the circumstances in which designation of National Environmental Policy Act Endangered and threatened species, critical habitat may be found to be not (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not Exports, Imports, Reporting and prudent, as explained above. Given the be prepared in connection with listing recordkeeping requirements, revisions to the critical habitat a species as an endangered or Transportation. regulations, we have reevaluated our threatened species under the determination on whether designation Endangered Species Act. We published Regulation Promulgation a notice outlining our reasons for this of critical habitat for these species is Accordingly, we amend part 17, determination in the Federal Register prudent. subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). As explained above, habitats for both Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: the meltwater lednian stonefly and the Government-to-Government western glacier stonefly originate from Relationship With Tribes PART 17—ENDANGERED AND meltwater sources that will be impacted THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS by any projected warming, including In accordance with the President’s glaciers, rock glaciers, and small memorandum of April 29, 1994 ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 icefields, perennial and seasonal (Government-to-Government Relations continues to read as follows: snowpack, alpine springs, and glacial with Native American Tribal lake outlets (Hauer et al. 2007, p. 107; Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– Giersch et al. 2017, p. 2584). The sole Order 13175 (Consultation and 1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise threats to meltwater lednian stonefly Coordination With Indian Tribal noted. and western glacier stonefly are the Governments), and the Department of fragmentation and degradation of these the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding entries habitats in the form of declining readily acknowledge our responsibility for ‘‘Stonefly, meltwater lednian’’ and streamflows and increasing water to communicate meaningfully with ‘‘Stonefly, western glacier’’ to the List of temperatures resulting from climate recognized Federal Tribes on a Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in change. Drought is also expected to government-to-government basis. In alphabetical order under ‘‘Insects’’ to affect habitat occupied by meltwater accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 read as follows: lednian stonefly and western glacier of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal § 17.11 Endangered and threatened stonefly that is supplied by meltwater Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust wildlife. sources. Given the remote nature of Responsibilities, and the Endangered these species’ alpine habitats and Species Act), we readily acknowledge * * * * * extremely limited human activity in our responsibilities to work directly (h) * * *

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Nov 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM 21NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 64227

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and applicable rules

*******

Insects

******* Stonefly, meltwater lednian Lednia tumana ...... Wherever found...... T 84 FR [Insert Federal Register page where the document begins]; 11/21/ 2019; 50 CFR 17.47(c).4d Stonefly, western glacier .... Zapada glacier ...... Wherever found...... T 84 FR [Insert Federal Register page where the document begins]; 11/21/ 2019; 50 CFR 17.47(c).4d

*******

■ 3. Amend § 17.47 by adding paragraph wildlife that are covered by an approved until 12:01 a.m., central time, on July 1, (c) to read as follows: cooperative agreement to carry out 2020. conservation programs. § 17.47 Special rules—insects. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dated: November 13, 2019. Kelli O’Donnell, NMFS Southeast * * * * * Margaret E. Everson, Regional Office, telephone: 727–824– (c)Western glacier stonefly (Zapada 5305, email: [email protected]. glacier) and meltwater lednian stonefly Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and (Lednia tumana)—(1) Prohibitions. The Wildlife Service, Exercising the Authority of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following prohibitions that apply to the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish endangered wildlife also apply to [FR Doc. 2019–25195 Filed 11–20–19; 8:45 am] in the Gulf includes king mackerel, western glacier stonefly and meltwater BILLING CODE 4333–15–P Spanish mackerel, and cobia, and is lednian stonefly except as provided managed under the Fishery under paragraph (c)(2) of this section Management Plan for the Coastal and §§ 17.4 and 17.5. It is unlawful for DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf any person subject to the jurisdiction of of Mexico and Atlantic Region (FMP). the United States to commit, to attempt National Oceanic and Atmospheric The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of to commit, to solicit another to commit, Administration Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery or cause to be committed, any of the Management Councils and is following acts in regard to these species: 50 CFR Part 622 implemented by NMFS under the (i) Import or export, as set forth at authority of the Magnuson-Stevens [Docket No. 160426363–7275–02; RTID Fishery Conservation and Management § 17.21(b). 0648–XS016] (ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(1). Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by (iii) Possession and other acts with Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources regulations at 50 CFR part 622. All unlawfully taken specimens, as set forth of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic weights for Gulf migratory group of king at § 17.21(d)(1). Region; 2019–2020 Commercial mackerel (Gulf king mackerel) below (iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in Closure for King Mackerel in the Gulf apply as either round or gutted weight. the course of commercial activity, as set of Mexico Western Zone The commercial quota for the Gulf forth at § 17.21(e). king mackerel in the western zone is (v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 1,096,000 lb (497,137 kg) for the current at § 17.21(f). Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and fishing year, July 1, 2019, through June (2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 30, 2020 (50 CFR 622.384(b)(1)(i)). regard to this species, you may: Commerce. The western zone of Gulf king (i) Conduct activities as authorized by ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. mackerel is located in the EEZ between a permit under § 17.32. a line extending east from the border of (ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(3) SUMMARY: NMFS implements an the United States and Mexico, and and (4) for endangered wildlife. accountability measure (AM) for 87°31.1′ W. long., which is a line (iii) Possess and engage in other acts, commercial king mackerel in the extending south from the state boundary as set forth at § 17.21(d)(2) for western zone of the Gulf of Mexico of Alabama and Florida. The western endangered wildlife. (Gulf) exclusive economic zone (EEZ) zone includes the EEZ off Texas, (iv) In addition to any other through this temporary rule. NMFS has Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. provisions of this part, any employee or determined that the commercial quota Regulations at 50 CFR 622.388(a)(1)(i) agent of the Service, of the National for king mackerel in the western zone of require NMFS to close the commercial Marine Fisheries Service, or of a State the Gulf EEZ will be reached by sector for Gulf king mackerel in the conservation agency that is operating a November 21, 2019. Therefore, NMFS western zone when the zone’s conservation program pursuant to the closes the western zone of the Gulf EEZ commercial quota is reached, or is terms of a cooperative agreement with to commercial king mackerel fishing on projected to be reached, by filing a the Service in accordance with section November 21, 2019. This closure is notification to that effect with the Office 6(c) of the Act, who is designated by necessary to protect the Gulf king of the Federal Register. NMFS has that agency for such purposes, may, mackerel resource. determined the commercial quota for when acting in the course of official DATES: The closure is effective at noon, Gulf king mackerel in the western zone duties, take those threatened species of central time, on November 21, 2019, will be reached by November 21, 2019.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Nov 20, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM 21NOR1