[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 4, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68379-68397]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23710]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2016-0086; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-BB52


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding 
on a Petition To List the Western Glacier Stonefly as an Endangered or 
Threatened Species; Proposed Threatened Species Status for Meltwater 
Lednian Stonefly and Western Glacier Stonefly

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month petition finding and status review.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
12-month finding for the western glacier stonefly (Zapada glacier). 
After a review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information, we find that listing the western glacier stonefly is 
warranted. We are also announcing the proposed listing rule for the 
candidate species meltwater lednian stonefly (Lednia tumana). 
Therefore, we are proposing to list both the meltwater lednian stonefly 
and the western glacier stonefly, two insect species from Glacier 
National Park and northwestern Montana, as threatened species under the 
Endangered Species Act (Act). If we finalize this rule as proposed, it 
would extend the Act's protections to these species. The effect of this 
regulation will be to add these species to the Federal List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The Service seeks data and comments 
from the public on this proposed listing rule.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
December 5, 2016. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. 
Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for public 
hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT by November 18, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:

[[Page 68380]]

    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R6-ES-2016-0086, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search 
panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, 
click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may 
submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2016-0086; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service Headquarters, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 
22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Public Comments below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jodi Bush, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Montana Ecological Services Field Office, 585 
Shepard Way, Helena, MT 59601, by telephone 406-449-5225 or by 
facsimile 406-449-5339. Persons who use a telecommunications device for 
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if a species is 
determined to be an endangered or threatened species throughout all or 
a significant portion of its range, we are required to promptly publish 
a proposal in the Federal Register and make a determination on our 
proposal within 1 year. Critical habitat shall be designated, to the 
maximum extent prudent and determinable, for any species determined to 
be an endangered or threatened species under the Act. Listing a species 
as an endangered or threatened species and designations and revisions 
of critical habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule. In the 
near future, we intend to publish a proposal to designate critical 
habitat for meltwater lednian stonefly and western glacier stonefly. 
Designation of critical habitat is prudent, but not determinable at 
this time.
    This document proposes the listing of the meltwater lednian 
stonefly and the western glacier stonefly as threatened species. The 
meltwater lednian stonefly is a candidate species for which we have on 
file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to 
support preparation of a listing proposal, but for which development of 
a listing regulation has been precluded by other higher priority 
listing activities. We were petitioned to list the western glacier 
stonefly and published a substantial 90-day finding in 2011. We 
assessed all information regarding status of and threats to both the 
meltwater lednian stonefly and the western glacier stonefly that was 
available through August 11, 2016. However, we received additional 
information on western glacier stonefly on August 12, 2016, indicating 
a larger range than previously known. Because we received this new 
information late in the status review process, we were unable to fully 
incorporate and analyze the new information in this document in time to 
meet the settlement agreement deadline of submitting a 12-month finding 
for western glacier stonefly to the Federal Register by September 30, 
2016. As such, we plan to reopen the comment period on this proposed 
listing rule in the near future when we have been able to fully 
incorporate and analyze the new information and allow the public to 
comment on the new information and our analysis of it at that time. The 
current document consists of the 12-month finding for the western 
glacier stonefly, for which we find listing is warranted, and proposed 
rules to list both stonefly species.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we can determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five 
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence. We have determined that habitat fragmentation and 
degradation resulting from climate change are current and future 
threats to the viability of both the meltwater lednian stonefly and the 
western glacier stonefly. Drought is expected to be a threat to both 
stonefly species in the foreseeable future.
    We will seek peer review. We will seek comments from appropriate 
and independent specialists to ensure that our determination is based 
on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will invite 
these peer reviewers to comment on our listing proposal. Because we 
will consider all comments and information received during the comment 
period, our final determinations may differ from this proposal.

Information Requested

Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from the public, other concerned governmental 
agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, 
or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. Because 
we will consider all comments and information received during the 
comment period, our final determinations may differ from this proposal. 
We particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) The meltwater lednian stonefly and the western glacier stonefly 
biology, range, and population trends, including:
    (a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including 
habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
    (c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns;
    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends; and
    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, their 
habitat, or both.
    (2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species, 
which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization, 
disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, 
or other natural or manmade factors.
    (3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threats (or lack thereof) to these species and existing regulations 
that may be addressing those threats.
    (4) Additional information concerning the historical and current 
status, range, distribution, and population size of these species, 
including the locations of any additional populations.
    As referenced above in the Executive Summary, we will be reopening 
the comment period for this proposed listing rule in the near future 
once we incorporate and analyze the new information we recently 
obtained on western glacier stonefly, which is further described under 
Distribution and Abundance below. During the reopening of the comment 
period, we will seek comments concerning the new information describing 
the expanded range and additional populations of western glacier 
stonefly.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific

[[Page 68381]]

journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any 
scientific or commercial information you include.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for or 
opposition to the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 
determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered 
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available.''
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
    If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We 
will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Montana Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings 
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 
days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal 
Register. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule public hearings on this 
proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and 
places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable 
accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 
15 days before the hearing.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we are seeking the 
expert opinions of three appropriate and independent specialists 
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure 
that our listing determinations are based on scientifically sound data, 
assumptions, and analyses. The peer reviewers have expertise in 
stonefly biology, habitat, and life history. We invite comment from the 
peer reviewers during the public comment periods.

Previous Federal Action

Meltwater Lednian Stonefly

    On July 30, 2007, we received a petition from Forest Guardians (now 
WildEarth Guardians) requesting that the Service: (1) Consider all full 
species in our Mountain Prairie Region ranked by the organization 
NatureServe as G1 or G1G2 (which includes the meltwater lednian 
stonefly), except those that are currently listed, proposed for 
listing, or candidates for listing; and (2) list each species as either 
endangered or threatened (Forest Guardians 2007, pp. 1-37). We replied 
to the petition on August 24, 2007, and stated that, based on 
preliminary review, we found no compelling evidence to support an 
emergency listing for any of the species covered by the petition, and 
that we planned work on the petition in Fiscal Year (FY) 2008.
    On March 19, 2008, WildEarth Guardians filed a complaint (1:08-CV-
472-CKK) indicating that the Service failed to comply with its 
mandatory duty to make a preliminary 90-day finding on their two 
multiple species petitions in two of the Service's administrative 
regions--one for the Mountain-Prairie Region and one for the Southwest 
Region (WildEarth Guardians v. Kempthorne 2008, case 1:08-CV-472-CKK). 
We subsequently published two initial 90-day findings on January 6, 
2009 (74 FR 419), and February 5, 2009 (74 FR 6122), identifying 
species for which we were then making negative 90-day findings, and 
species for which we were still working on a determination. On March 
13, 2009, the Service and WildEarth Guardians filed a stipulated 
settlement in the District of Columbia Court, agreeing that the Service 
would submit to the Federal Register a finding as to whether WildEarth 
Guardians' petition presents substantial information indicating that 
the petitioned action may be warranted for 38 Mountain-Prairie Region 
species by August 9, 2009 (WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar 2009, case 
1:08-CV-472-CKK).
    On August 18, 2009, we published a partial 90-day finding for the 
38 Mountain-Prairie Region species, and found that the petition 
presented substantial information to indicate that listing of the 
meltwater lednian stonefly may be warranted based on threats from 
habitat loss and degradation due to climate change, and specifically 
the melting of glaciers associated with the species' habitat; and went 
on to request further information pertaining to the species (74 FR 
41649, 41659-41660).
    On April 5, 2011, we published a 12-month finding (76 FR 18684) for 
the meltwater lednian stonefly indicating that listing was warranted, 
but precluded by higher priority listing actions. At that time, the 
meltwater lednian stonefly was added to our list of candidate species 
with a listing priority number (LPN) of 4. In the 2011 candidate notice 
of review (76 FR 66370, October 24, 2011; p. 66376), we announced a 
revised LPN of 5 for the species due to research that showed the 
meltwater lednian stonefly was no longer considered to be a monotypic 
genus. In each successive year since then we reaffirmed our 2011 
finding of warranted but precluded and maintained a listing priority 
number of 5 for the species.

Western Glacier Stonefly

    On January 10, 2011, we received a petition to list the western 
glacier stonefly from the Xerces Society and Center for Biological 
Diversity. We replied to the petition on August 3, 2011, indicating 
that emergency listing was not warranted. On December 19, 2011, we 
published a 90-day finding (76 FR 78601) for the western glacier 
stonefly indicating there was substantial scientific information 
indicating that listing of the species may be warranted. On April 15, 
2015, the Center for Biological Diversity filed an amended complaint 
(1:15-CV-00229-EGS) seeking 12-month findings for several species, 
including the western glacier stonefly. On September 15, 2015, the 
Service and the Center for Biological Diversity filed a stipulated 
settlement in the District of Columbia Court, agreeing that the Service 
would submit to the Federal Register a 12-month finding for the western 
glacier stonefly by September 30, 2016 (Center for Biological Diversity 
v. Jewell 2009, case 1:15-CV-00229-EGS). This document contains the 
status review and 12-month finding for the species.
    Because both stonefly species occupy similar habitat in the same 
geographic region of northwestern Montana and are faced with similar 
threats, we have batched them into one status review and subsequent 
proposed rule for efficiency. Therefore, this document constitutes both 
the 12-month finding and proposed listing rule for the western glacier 
stonefly, and the proposed listing rule for the meltwater lednian 
stonefly.

[[Page 68382]]

Background

Taxonomy and Species Description

    The meltwater lednian and western glacier stoneflies are small 
insects that begin life as eggs, hatch into aquatic nymphs, and later 
mature into winged adults, surviving briefly on land before reproducing 
and dying. The nymph, or aquatic juvenile stage, of the meltwater 
lednian stonefly is dark red-brown on its dorsal surface and pink on 
the ventral surface, with light grey-green legs (Baumann and Stewart 
1980, p. 658). Mature nymphs can range in size from 4.5 to 6.5 
millimeters (mm) (0.18 to 0.26 in.; Baumann and Stewart 1980, p. 655). 
Nymphs mature into the adult terrestrial phase that has wings and body 
sizes ranging from 4 to 6 mm (0.16 to 0.24 in.; Baumann 1975, p. 79). 
Western glacier stonefly nymphs are similar in color and size to 
meltwater stonefly nymphs. Western glacier stonefly adults are 
generally brown in color with yellowish brown legs and possess two sets 
of translucent wings (Baumann and Gaufin 1971, p. 275). Adults range 
from 6.5 to 10.0 millimeters (mm) (0.26 to 0.39 inches (in)) in body 
length (Baumann and Gaufin 1971, p. 275). Western glacier stonefly 
nymphs cannot be distinguished from other Zapada nymphs using gross 
morphological characteristics. Thus, DNA barcoding (in which DNA 
sequences of unidentified nymphs are compared with those of positively 
identified adults) must be used to positively identify western glacier 
stonefly nymphs.
    The meltwater lednian stonefly was originally described by Ricker 
in 1952 (Baumann 1975, p. 18) from the Many Glacier area of Glacier 
National Park (GNP), Montana (Baumann 1982, pers. comm.). The meltwater 
lednian stonefly belongs to the phylum Arthropoda, class Insecta, order 
Plecoptera (stoneflies), family Nemouridae, and subfamily Nemourinae. 
Until recently, the meltwater lednian stonefly was believed to be the 
only species in the genus Lednia (Baumann 1975, p. 19; Stewart and 
Harper 1996, p. 263; Stark et al. 2009, entire; 76 FR 18688). However, 
three additional species (L. borealis-Cascade Range, Washington; L. 
sierra-Sierra Madre Range, California; and L. tetonica-Wind River 
Range, Wyoming) have been described in the genus Lednia since 2010 
(Baumann and Kondratieff 2010, entire; Baumann and Call 2012, entire). 
Thus, the Service no longer considers the genus Lednia to be monotypic. 
The meltwater lednian stonefly is recognized as a valid species by the 
scientific community (e.g., Baumann 1975, p. 18; Baumann et al. 1977, 
pp. 7, 34; Newell et al. 2008, p. 181; Stark et al. 2009, entire), and 
no information is available that disputes this finding. Consequently, 
we conclude that the meltwater lednian stonefly (Lednia tumana) is a 
valid species and, therefore, a listable entity under section 3(16) of 
the Act.
    The western glacier stonefly was first described in 1971 from adult 
specimens collected from five locations in GNP, Montana (Baumann and 
Gaufin 1971, p. 277). The western glacier stonefly is in the same 
family as the meltwater lednian stonefly (i.e., family Nemouridae; 
Baumann 1975, pp. 1, 31; Service 2011, p. 18688), but a different genus 
(Zapada). Members of the Zapada genus are the most common of the 
Nemouridae family (Baumann 1975, p. 31). The western glacier stonefly 
is recognized as a valid species by the scientific community (Baumann 
1975, p. 30; Stark 1996, entire; Stark et al. 2009, p. 8), and no 
information is available that disputes this finding. Consequently, we 
conclude that the western glacier stonefly is a valid species and, 
therefore, a listable entity under section 3(16) of the Act.

Distribution and Abundance

Meltwater Lednian Stonefly
    Fifty-eight populations of meltwater lednian stoneflies are known 
to occur; these are located primarily within GNP, with a few 
populations recorded south of GNP on National Forest and tribal lands 
(Figure 1; Giersch and Muhlfeld 2015, in progress). Meltwater lednian 
stonefly occupy relatively short reaches of streams [mean = 565 meters 
(m) (1,854 feet; ft); range = 1-2,355 m (3-7,726 ft)] below meltwater 
sources (for description, see Habitat section below; Giersch and 
Muhlfeld 2015, in progress). Meltwater lednian stoneflies can attain 
moderate to high densities [(350-5,800 per square m) (32-537 per square 
ft)] (e.g., Logan Creek: Baumann and Stewart 1980, p. 658; NPS 2009, 
entire; Muhlfeld et al. 2011, p. 342; Giersch 2016, pers. comm.). Given 
this range of densities and a coarse assessment of available habitat, 
the abundance of meltwater lednian stonefly is estimated to be in the 
millions of individuals, however, no population trend information is 
available for the meltwater lednian stonefly.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 68383]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.138

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
Western Glacier Stonefly
    Four populations of the western glacier stonefly are known to 
occur, all within the boundaries of GNP (Figure 2; Giersch and Muhlfeld 
2015, in progress). Similar to the meltwater lednian stonefly, western 
glacier stoneflies are found on relatively short reaches of strems in 
close proximity to meltwater sources [means = 508 m (1,667 ft.); range 
= 15-1407 m (49-4,616 ft.)] (Giersch and Muhlfeld 2015, in progress). 
Western glafier stoneflies can attain moderate densities [(400-2,300 
per square m) (37-213 per square ft)] (Giersch 2016, pers. comm.). 
Given this

[[Page 68384]]

range of densities and a coarse assessment of available habitat, the 
abundance of the western glacier stonefly is estimated to be in the 
tens of thousands of individuals, less numerous than the meltwater 
lednian stonefly.
    Western glacier sotneflies have decreased in distribution among and 
within 6 streams where the species occurred in the 1960s and 1970s in 
GNP (Giersch et al. 2015, p. 58). Of the four known populations of the 
western glacier stonelfy, three were first documented relatively 
recently in GNP (Giersch et al. 2015, p.59; giersch and Muhlfeld 2015, 
in progress). In August 2016, we received new information indicating 
that the distribution of western glacier stonefly extends outside of 
GNP, including one population in the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness in 
southwestern Montana and three populations in Grand Teton National 
Park, Wyoming. This distribution represents a large range expansion 
(500 km southward) for western glacier stonefly compared to the range 
previously known for the species. However, because we received this 
information too late in the status review process to be able to 
incorporate it in time to meet the settlement agreement deadline of 
September 30, 2016, we have not yet fully evaluated this information, 
or incorporated it into our analysis or this proposed rule. We intend 
to reopen the comment period on the proposed listing rule when this 
information has been fully incorporated and analyzed.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 68385]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.139

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
    The northern distributional limits of the meltwater lednian 
stonefly and the western glacier stonefly are not known. Potential 
habitat for meltwater lednian and western glacier stoneflies, similar 
to what both species are currently occupying, exists in the area of 
Banff and Jasper National Parks, Alberta, Canada. Aquatic invertebrate 
surveys have been conducted in this area, and no specimens of either 
species were found, although it is likely that sampling did not occur 
close enough to glaciers or icefields to detect either meltwater 
lednian or western glacier stonefly, if indeed they were present 
(Hirose 2016, pers. comm.). Sampling in this area for both meltwater 
lednian and western glacier stoneflies is planned for the future and 
would help fill in an

[[Page 68386]]

important data gap with regard to northern distributional limits of 
both species.

Habitat

Meltwater Lednian Stonefly
    The meltwater lednian stonefly is found in high-elevation, 
fishless, alpine streams (Baumann and Stewart 1980, p. 658; MNHP 2010a) 
originating from meltwater sources, including glaciers and small 
icefields, permanent and seasonal snowpack, alpine springs, and glacial 
lake outlets (Hauer et al. 2007, p. 107; Giersch and Muhlfeld 2015, in 
progress). Meltwater lednian stonefly are known from alpine streams 
where mean and maximum water temperatures do not exceed 10 [deg]C (50 
[deg]F) and 18 [deg]C (64 [deg]F), respectively (Muhlfeld et al. 2011, 
p. 342), although the species can withstand higher water temperatures 
(~20 [deg]C; 68 [deg]F) for short periods of time (Treanor et al. 2013, 
p. 602). In general, the alpine streams inhabited by the meltwater 
lednian stonefly are presumed to have very low nutrient concentrations 
(low nitrogen and phosphorus), reflecting the nutrient content of the 
glacial or snowmelt source (Hauer et al. 2007, pp. 107-108). During the 
daytime, meltwater lednian stonefly nymphs prefer to occupy the 
underside of rocks or larger pieces of bark or wood (Baumann and 
Stewart 1980, p. 658; Giersch and Muhlfeld 2015, in progress).
Western Glacier Stonefly
    Western glacier stoneflies are found in high-elevation, fishless, 
alpine streams closely linked to the same meltwater sources as the 
meltwater lednian stonefly (Giersch and Muhlfeld 2015, in progress). 
The specific thermal tolerances of the western glacier stonefly are not 
known. However, all recent collections of the western glacier stonefly 
in GNP have occurred in habitats with daily maximum water temperatures 
less than 6.3 [deg]C (43 [deg]F) (Giersch et al. 2015, p. 61). Further, 
abundance patterns for other species in the Zapada genus in GNP 
indicate preferences for the coolest environmental temperatures, such 
as those found at high elevation in proximity to headwater sources 
(Hauer et al. 2007, p. 110). Daytime microhabitat preferences of the 
western glacier stonefly appear similar to those for the meltwater 
lednian stonefly (Giersch and Muhlfeld 2015, in progress).

Biology

    Little information is available on the biology of the meltwater 
lednian and western glacier stoneflies. However, we assume that both 
species are likely to be similar to other closely related stoneflies in 
the Nemouridae family in terms of habitat needs and life-history 
traits. In general, Nemouridae stoneflies are primarily associated with 
clean, cool or cold, flowing waters (Baumann 1979, pp. 242-243; Stewart 
and Harper 1996, p. 217). Eggs and nymphs of Nemouridae stoneflies are 
aquatic (Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 217), and nymphs rely on perennial 
water sources to breathe through gills, similar to fish. Nemouridae 
nymphs are typically herbivores or detritivores, and their feeding mode 
is generally that of a shredder or collector-gatherer (Baumann 1975, p. 
1; Stewart and Harper 1996, pp. 218, 262). Typically, Nemouridae 
stoneflies complete their life cycles within a single year (univoltine) 
or in 2 to 3 years (semivoltine) (Stewart and Harper 1996, pp. 217-
218).
    Mature stonefly nymphs emerge from the water and complete their 
development in the terrestrial environment as short-lived adults on and 
around streamside vegetation or other structures (Hynes 1976, pp. 135-
136; Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 217). It is unknown if adult 
stoneflies select for particular features in the terrestrial 
environment. Timing of stonefly emergence is influenced by temperature 
and amount of daylight (Nebeker 1971 cited in Hynes 1976, p. 137). 
Adult meltwater lednian stoneflies are believed to emerge and breed in 
August and September (Baumann and Stewart 1980, p. 658; Giersch 2010b, 
pers. comm.; MNHP 2010a). Adult western glacier stoneflies have been 
collected from land in early July through mid-August (Baumann and 
Gaufin 1971, p. 277), almost immediately after snow has melted and 
exposed streams.
    Nemouridae stoneflies disperse longitudinally (up or down stream) 
or laterally to the stream bank from their benthic (nymphal) source 
(Hynes 1976, p. 138; Griffith et al. 1998, p. 195; Petersen et al. 
2004, pp. 944-945). Generally, adult stoneflies stay close to the 
channel of their source stream (Petersen et al. 2004, p. 946), and 
lateral movement into neighboring uplands is confined to less than 80 
meters (262 feet) from the stream (Griffith et al. 1998, p. 197). Thus, 
Nemouridae stoneflies, and likely meltwater lednian and western glacier 
stoneflies, have limited dispersal capabilities.
    Adult male and female stoneflies are mutually attracted by a 
drumming sound produced by tapping their abdomens on a substrate (Hynes 
1976, p. 140). After mating, females deposit a mass of fertilized eggs 
in water where they are widely dispersed or attached to substrates by 
sticky coverings or specialized anchoring devices (Hynes 1976, p. 141; 
Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 217). Eggs may hatch within a few weeks or 
remain in diapause (dormancy) for much longer periods if environmental 
conditions, such as temperature, are not conducive to development 
(Hynes 1976, p. 142). Environmental conditions also may affect the 
growth and development of hatchlings (Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 217).

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    The Act directs us to determine whether any species is an 
endangered species or a threatened species because of any factors 
affecting its continued existence. In this section, we summarize the 
biological condition of these species and their resources, and the 
influences on such to assess both species' overall viability and the 
risks to that viability.
    In considering what factors might constitute threats to a species, 
we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a factor to evaluate 
whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that causes 
actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor and the 
species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we attempt 
to determine how significant a threat it is. The threat is significant 
if it drives, or contributes to, the risk of extinction of the species 
such that the species warrants listing as endangered or threatened as 
those terms are defined in the Act.

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

    Meltwater lednian and western glacier stoneflies occupy remote, 
high-elevation alpine habitats in GNP and several proximate watersheds. 
The remoteness of these habitats largely precludes overlap with human 
uses and typical land management activities (e.g., forestry, mining, 
irrigation) that have historically modified habitats of many species. 
However, these relatively pristine, remote habitats are not expected to 
be immune to the effects of climate change. Thus, our analysis under 
Factor A focuses on the expected effects of climate change on meltwater 
lednian and western glacier stonefly habitat and populations.
Climate Change
    Our analyses under the Endangered Species Act include consideration 
of ongoing and projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and

[[Page 68387]]

``climate change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change (IPCC). The term ``climate'' refers to the mean and 
variability of different types of weather conditions over time, with 30 
years being a typical period for such measurements, although shorter or 
longer periods also may be used (IPCC 2014, pp. 119-120). The term 
``climate change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or variability 
of one or more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) 
that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, 
whether the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or 
both (IPCC 2014, p. 120).
    Scientific measurements spanning several decades demonstrate that 
changes in climate are occurring; since the 1950s many of the observed 
changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia (IPCC 2014, p. 40). 
Examples include warming of the global climate system, and substantial 
increases in precipitation in some regions of the world and decreases 
in other regions. (For these and other examples, see IPCC 2014, pp. 40-
44; and Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 35-54, 82-85). Results of scientific 
analyses presented by the IPCC show that most of the observed increase 
in global average temperature since the mid-20th century cannot be 
explained by natural variability in climate, and is ``extremely 
likely'' (defined by the IPCC as 95 percent or higher probability) due 
to the observed increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the 
atmosphere as a result of human activities, particularly carbon dioxide 
emissions from use of fossil fuels (IPCC 2014, p. 48 and figures 1.9 
and 1.10; Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 21-35).
    Scientists use a variety of climate models, which include 
consideration of natural processes and variability, as well as various 
scenarios of potential levels and timing of GHG emissions, to evaluate 
the causes of changes already observed and to project future changes in 
temperature and other climate conditions (e.g., Meehl et al. 2007, 
entire; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 11555, 15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 
527, 529). All combinations of models and emissions scenarios yield 
very similar projections of increases in the most common measure of 
climate change, average global surface temperature (commonly known as 
global warming), until about 2050 (IPCC 2014, p. 11; Ray et al. 2010, 
p. 11). Although projections of the magnitude and rate of warming 
differ after about 2050, the overall trajectory of all the projections 
is one of increased global warming through the end of this century, 
even for the projections based on scenarios that assume that GHG 
emissions will stabilize or decline. Thus, there is strong scientific 
support for projections that warming will continue through the 21st 
century, and that the magnitude and rate of change will be influenced 
substantially by the extent of GHG emissions (IPCC 2014, p. 57; Meehl 
et al. 2007, pp. 760-764 and 797-811; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 15555-
15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529). (See IPCC 2014, pp. 9-13, for 
a summary of other global projections of climate-related changes, such 
as frequency of heat waves and changes in precipitation.)
    Various changes in climate may have direct or indirect effects on 
species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they 
may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant 
considerations, such as interactions of climate with other variables 
(e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2014, pp. 6-7; 10-14). Identifying 
likely effects often involves aspects of climate change vulnerability 
analysis. Vulnerability refers to the degree to which a species (or 
system) is susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse effects of 
climate change, including climate variability and extremes. 
Vulnerability is a function of the type, magnitude, and rate of climate 
change and variation to which a species is exposed, its sensitivity, 
and its adaptive capacity (IPCC 2014, pp. 70, 72; see also Glick et al. 
2011, pp. 19-22). There is no single method for conducting such 
analyses that applies to all situations (Glick et al. 2011, p. 3). We 
use our expert judgment and appropriate analytical approaches to weigh 
relevant information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of 
various aspects of climate change.
    As is the case with all stressors that we assess, even if we 
conclude that a species is currently affected or is likely to be 
affected in a negative way by one or more climate-related impacts, it 
does not necessarily follow that the species meets the definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species'' under the Act. If a 
species is listed as endangered or threatened, knowledge regarding the 
vulnerability of the species to, and known or anticipated impacts from, 
climate-associated changes in environmental conditions can be used to 
help devise appropriate strategies for its recovery.
    Global climate projections are informative, and, in some cases, the 
only or the best scientific information available for us to use. 
However, projected changes in climate and related impacts can vary 
substantially across and within different regions of the world (e.g., 
IPCC 2014, pp. 12, 14). Therefore, we use ``downscaled'' projections 
when they are available and have been developed through appropriate 
scientific procedures, because such projections provide higher 
resolution information that is more relevant to spatial scales used for 
analyses of a given species (see Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58-61, for a 
discussion of downscaling). With regard to our analysis for the 
meltwater lednian stonefly and western glacier stonefly, downscaled 
projections are available.
    Regional climate--The western United States appears to be warming 
faster than the global average. In the Pacific Northwest, regionally 
averaged temperatures have risen 0.8 [deg]C (1.5 [deg]F) over the last 
century and as much as 2 [deg]C (4 [deg]F) in some areas. Since 1900, 
the mean annual air temperature for GNP and the surrounding region has 
increased 1.3 [deg]C (2.3 [deg]F), which is 1.8 times the global mean 
increase (U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2010, p. 1). Mean annual air 
temperatures are projected to increase by another 1.5 to 5.5 [deg]C (3 
to 10 [deg]F) over the next 100 years (Karl et al. 2009, p. 135). 
Warming also appears to be pronounced in alpine regions globally (e.g., 
Hall and Fagre 2003, p. 134 and references therein). For the purposes 
of this finding, we consider the foreseeable future for anticipated 
effects of climate change on the alpine environment to be approximately 
35 years (~year 2050) based on two factors. First, various global 
climate models (GCMs) and emissions scenarios provide consistent 
predictions within that timeframe (IPCC 2014, p. 11). Second, the 
effect of climate change on glaciers in GNP has been modeled within 
that timeframe (e.g., Hall and Fagre 2003, entire; Brown et al. 2010, 
entire).
    Habitats for both the meltwater lednian stonefly and the western 
glacier stonefly originate from meltwater sources that will be impacted 
by any projected warming, including glaciers and small icefields, 
permanent and seasonal snowpack, alpine springs, and glacial lake 
outlets (Hauer et al. 2007, p. 107; Giersch and Muhlfeld 2015, in 
progress). The alteration or loss of these meltwater sources and 
perennial habitat has direct consequences on both meltwater lednian 
stonefly and western glacier stonefly populations. Below, we provide an 
overview of expected rate of loss of meltwater sources in GNP as a 
result of climate change, followed by the predicted effects to stonefly 
habitat and populations from altered stream flows and water 
temperatures.

[[Page 68388]]

    Glacier loss--Glacier loss in GNP is directly influenced by climate 
change (e.g., Hall and Fagre 2003, entire; Fagre 2005, entire). When 
established in 1910, GNP contained approximately 150 glaciers larger 
than 0.1 square kilometer (25 acres) in size, but presently only 25 
glaciers larger than this size remain (Fagre 2005, pp. 1-3; USGS 2005, 
2010). Hall and Fagre (2003, entire) modeled the effects of climate 
change on glaciers in GNP's Blackfoot-Jackson basin using then-current 
climate assumptions (i.e., doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide by 
2030). Under this scenario, glaciers were predicted to completely melt 
in GNP by 2030, and predicted increases in winter precipitation due to 
climate change were not expected to buffer glacial shrinking (Hall and 
Fagre 2003, pp. 137-138). A more recent analysis of Sperry Glacier in 
GNP estimates this particular glacier may persist through 2080, in part 
due to annual avalanche inputs from an adjacent cirque wall (Brown et 
al. 2010, p. 5). We are not aware of any other published studies using 
more recent climate scenarios that speak directly to anticipated 
conditions of remaining glaciers in GNP. Thus, we largely rely on Hall 
and Fagre's 2003 predictions in our analysis, supplemented with more 
recent glacier-specific studies where appropriate (e.g., Brown et al. 
2010, entire). However, we note that most climate scenarios developed 
since 2003 predict higher carbon dioxide concentrations (and thus 
greater warming and predicted effects) than those used in Hall and 
Fagre (2003).
    Loss of other meltwater sources--Meltwater in meltwater lednian 
stonefly and western glacier stonefly habitat is supplied by glaciers, 
as well as by four other sources: (1) Seasonal snow; (2) permanent 
snow; (3) alpine springs; and (4) ice masses (Giersch and Muhlfeld 
2015, in progress). Seasonal snow is that which accumulates and melts 
seasonally, with the amount varying year to year depending on annual 
weather events. Permanent snow is some portion of a snowfield that does 
not generally melt on an annual basis, the volume of which can change 
over time. Alpine springs originate from some combination of meltwater 
from snow, ice masses or glaciers, and groundwater. Ice masses are 
smaller than glaciers and do not actively move as glaciers do.
    The sources of meltwater that supply meltwater lednian and western 
glacier stonefly habitat are expected to persist under a changing 
climate for varying durations. In general, we expect all meltwater 
sources to decline under a changing climate, given the relationship 
between climate and glacial melting (Hall and Fagre 2003, entire; Fagre 
2005, entire) and recent climate observations and modeling (IPCC 2014, 
entire). It is likely that seasonal snowpack levels will be most 
immediately affected by climate change, as the frequency of more 
extreme weather events increases (IPCC 2014, p. 8). These extremes may 
result in increased seasonal snowpack in some years and reduced 
snowpack in others.
    It is also expected that permanent snowpack and ice masses will 
decline and completely melt within the near future. The timing of their 
disappearance is expected to be before the majority of glacial melting 
(i.e., 2030), because permanent snowpack and ice masses are less dense 
than glaciers and typically have smaller volumes of snow and ice. 
However, alpine springs, at least those supplemented with groundwater, 
may continue to be present after complete glacial melting. We discuss 
the probable effects of declining meltwater from all sources on 
meltwater lednian stonefly and western glacier stonefly habitat and 
populations in more detail below. Our analysis primarily focuses on 
effects to meltwater lednian stonefly and western glacier stonefly 
populations within GNP. However, effects to meltwater lednian stonefly 
populations south of GNP are expected to be similar in magnitude and 
will likely occur sooner in time than those discussed for GNP, because 
the glaciers and ice/snow fields feeding occupied meltwater stonefly 
habitat in those areas are smaller in size, and thus likely to melt 
sooner than those in GNP.
Streamflows
    Meltwater streams--Declines in meltwater sources are expected to 
affect flows in meltwater streams in GNP. Glaciers and other meltwater 
sources act as water banks, whose continual melt maintains streamflows 
during late summer or drought periods (Hauer et al. 2007, p. 107). 
Following glacier loss, declines in streamflow and periodic dewatering 
events are expected to occur in meltwater streams in the northern Rocky 
Mountains (Hauer et al. 1997, p. 909). In similarly glaciated regions, 
intermittent stream flows have been documented following glacial 
recession and loss (Robinson et al. 2015, p. 8). By 2030, the modeled 
distribution of habitat with the highest likelihood of supporting 
meltwater lednian stonefly populations is predicted to decline by 81 
percent in GNP, compared to present (Muhlfeld et al. 2011, p. 342). 
Desiccation (drying) of these habitats, even periodically, could 
eliminate entire populations of the meltwater lednian stonefly and the 
western glacier stonefly because nymphs need perennial flowing water to 
breathe and to mature before reproducing. Given that both stonefly 
species are believed to be poor dispersers, recolonization of 
previously occupied habitats is not expected following dewatering and 
extirpation events. Lack of recolonization by either stonefly species 
is expected to lead to further isolation between extant populations.
    Fifty-three (of 58) meltwater lednian stonefly populations and one 
(of four) western glacier stonefly population occupy habitats supplied 
by seasonal snowpack, permanent snowpack, and ice masses, and some 
glaciers. Meltwater from these sources is expected to become 
inconsistent by 2030 (Hall and Fagre 2003, p. 137; Giersch and Muhlfeld 
2015, in progress). Although the rate at which flows will be reduced or 
at which dewatering events will occur in these habitats is unclear, we 
expect, at a minimum, to see decreases in abundance and distribution of 
both species in those populations. By 2030, the remaining populations 
are expected to be further isolated and occupying marginal habitat.
    Alpine springs--Declines in meltwater sources are also expected to 
affect flows in alpine springs, although likely on a longer time scale 
than for meltwater streams. Flow from alpine springs in the northern 
Rocky Mountains originates from glacial or snow meltwater in part, 
sometimes supplemented with groundwater (Hauer et al. 2007, p. 107). 
For this reason, some alpine springs are expected to be more climate-
resilient and persist longer than meltwater streams and may serve as 
refugia areas for meltwater lednian and western glacier stoneflies, at 
least in the near-term (Ward 1994, p. 283). However, small aquifers 
feeding alpine springs are ultimately replenished by glacial and other 
meltwater sources in alpine environments (Hauer et al. 1997, p. 908).
    Once glaciers in GNP melt, small aquifer volumes and the 
groundwater influence they provide to alpine springs are expected to 
decline. Thus by 2030, even flows from alpine springs supplemented with 
groundwater are expected to decline (Hauer et al. 1997, p. 910). This 
expected pattern of decline is consistent with observed patterns of low 
flow from alpine springs in the Rocky mountain region and other 
glaciated regions during years with little snowpack (Hauer et al. 1997, 
p. 910; Robinson et al. 2015, p. 9). Further, following complete 
melting of glaciers,

[[Page 68389]]

drying of alpine springs in GNP might be expected if annual 
precipitation fails to recharge groundwater supplies. Changes in future 
precipitation levels due to climate change in the GNP region are 
predicted to range from relatively unchanged to a small (~10 percent) 
annual increase (IPCC 2014, pp. 20-21).
    Only four populations of the meltwater lednian stonefly and two of 
the western glacier stonefly reside in streams originating from alpine 
springs. Thus, despite the potential for some alpine springs to provide 
refugia for both stonefly species even after glaciers melt, only a few 
populations may benefit from these potential refugia.
    Glacial lake outlets--Similar to alpine springs, flow from glacial 
lake outlets is expected to diminish gradually following the complete 
melting of most glaciers around 2030. Glacial lakes are expected to 
receive annual inflow from melting snow from the preceding winter, 
although the amount by which it may be reduced after complete glacial 
melting is unknown. Reductions in flow from glacial lakes are expected 
to, at a minimum, decrease the amount of available habitat for both 
meltwater lednian and western glacier stoneflies.
    One population each of the meltwater lednian stonefly and the 
western glacier stonefly occupies a glacial lake outlet (Upper Grinnell 
Lake; Giersch et al. 2015, p. 58, Giersch and Muhlfeld 2015, in 
progress). Thus, despite the fact that this habitat type may continue 
to provide refugia for both stonefly species even after the complete 
loss of glaciers, few populations may benefit from this potential 
refugia.
    As such, we conclude that habitat degradation in the form of 
reduced streamflows due to the effects of climate change is a threat to 
the persistence of 89 percent of meltwater lednian stonefly and 25 
percent of western glacier stonefly populations now and into the 
future.
Water Temperature
    Meltwater streams--Glaciers act as water banks, whose continual 
melting maintains suitable water temperatures for meltwater lednian 
stonefly and western glacier stonefly during late summer or drought 
periods (Hauer et al. 2007, p. 107; USGS 2010). As glaciers melt and 
contribute less volume of meltwater to streams, water temperatures are 
expected to rise (Hauer et al. 1997, p. 909). Aquatic invertebrates 
have specific temperature needs that influence their distribution 
(Fagre et al. 1997, p. 763; Lowe and Hauer 1999, pp. 1637, 1640, 1642; 
Hauer et al. 2007, p. 110); complete glacial melting may result in an 
increase in water temperatures above the physiological limits for 
survival or optimal growth for the meltwater lednian and western 
glacier stoneflies. As a result of melting glaciers and a lower volume 
of meltwater input into streams, we expect upward elevational shifts of 
meltwater lednian stonefly and western glacier stonefly populations, as 
they track their optimal thermal preferences. However, both meltwater 
lednian stonefly and western glacier stonefly already occupy the most 
upstream portions of these habitats and can move upstream only to the 
extent of the receding glacier/snowfield. Once the glaciers and 
snowfields completely melt, meltwater lednian stonefly and western 
glacier stonefly will have no physical habitat left to which to migrate 
upstream. The likely result of this scenario would be the extirpation 
of these populations. If meltwater from seasonal precipitation 
accumulation remained after the complete loss of glaciers, displacement 
or extirpation of populations of both stonefly species could still 
occur due to thermal conditions that become unsuitable, encroaching 
aquatic invertebrate species that may be superior competitors, or 
changed thermal conditions that may favor the encroaching species in 
competitive interactions between the species (condition-specific 
competition).
    The majority of meltwater lednian stonefly populations and one 
western glacier stonefly population occupy habitats that may warm 
significantly by 2030, due to the predicted complete melting of 
glaciers and snow/ice fields. Increasing water temperatures may be 
related to recent distributional declines of western glacier stoneflies 
within GNP (Giersch et al. 2015, p. 61). Thus, it is plausible that 
only those populations [6 meltwater lednian (11 percent of total known 
populations) and 3 western glacier stonefly (75 percent of total known 
populations)] occupying more climate-resilient habitat (e.g., springs, 
lake outlets, Sperry Glacier) may persist through 2030.
    Alpine springs--Although meltwater contributions to alpine springs 
are expected to decline as glaciers and permanent snow melt, water 
temperature at the springhead may remain relatively consistent due to 
the influence of groundwater, at least in the short term. The 
springhead itself may provide refugia for both meltwater lednian and 
western glacier stoneflies, although stream reaches below the actual 
springhead are expected to exhibit similar increases in water 
temperature in response to loss of glacial meltwater as those described 
for meltwater streams. However, as described above, some alpine springs 
may eventually dry up after glacier and snowpack loss, if annual 
precipitation fails to recharge groundwater supplies (Hauer et al. 
1997, p. 910; Robinson et al. 2015, p. 9).
    Only four populations of the meltwater lednian stonefly (7 percent 
of total known populations) and two of the western glacier stonefly (50 
percent of total known populations) reside in streams originating from 
alpine springs. Thus, despite the fact that alpine springs may be more 
thermally stable than meltwater streams and provide thermal refugia to 
both the meltwater lednian stonefly and the western glacier stonefly, 
only a few populations may benefit from this potential refugia.
    Glacial lake outlets--Similar to alpine springs, glacial lake 
outlets are more thermally stable habitats than meltwater streams. This 
situation is likely due to the buffering effect of large volumes of 
glacial lake water supplying these habitats. It is anticipated that the 
buffering effects of glacial lakes will continue to limit increases in 
water temperature to outlet stream habitats, even after loss of 
glaciers. However, water temperatures are still expected to increase 
over time following complete glacial loss in GNP. It is unknown whether 
water temperature increases in glacial lake outlets will exceed 
presumed temperature thresholds for meltwater lednian and western 
glacier stonefly in the near future. However, given the low water 
temperatures recorded in habitats where both species have been 
collected, even small increases in water temperature of glacial lake 
outlets may be biologically significant and detrimental to the 
persistence of both species.
    One population each of the meltwater lednian stonefly and the 
western glacier stonefly occupies a glacial lake outlet (Upper Grinnell 
Lake; Giersch et al. 2015, p. 58, Giersch and Muhlfeld 2015, in 
progress). Thus, despite the fact that glacial lake outlets may be more 
thermally stable than meltwater streams and provide thermal refugia to 
both the meltwater lednian stonefly and the western glacier stonefly, a 
small percentage of the overall population of each species may benefit 
from these potential refugia. Consequently, we conclude that changes in 
water temperature from climate change are a threat to most populations 
of both stonefly species now and into the future.

[[Page 68390]]

Maintenance and Improvement of Glacier National Park Infrastructure
    Glacier National Park is managed to protect natural and cultural 
resources, and the landscape within the park is relatively pristine. 
However, the GNP does include a number of human-built facilities and 
structures that support visitor services, recreation, and access, such 
as the Going-to-the-Sun Road (which bisects GNP) and numerous visitor 
centers, trailheads, overlooks, and lodges (e.g., NPS 2003a, pp. S3, 
11). Maintenance and improvement of these facilities and structures 
could conceivably lead to disturbance of the natural environment.
    We are aware of one water diversion on Logan Creek that supplies 
water to the Logan Pass Visitor Center. This diversion is located 
several feet under the streambed in a segment of Logan Creek in which 
meltwater lednian stonefly is found. While the diversion has been 
operated for decades, recent surveys indicate relatively high densities 
of meltwater lednian stonefly in Logan Creek, particularly upstream of 
the diversion (NPS 2009, entire; Giersch 2016, pers. comm.). The 
diversion is scheduled to be retrofitted in 2017, in part to decrease 
instream withdrawals and increase efficiency. The diversion retrofit 
will likely include dewatering a short section of stream surrounding 
the intake structure, by diverting streamflow around the construction 
site. Minimization measures expected to be implemented as part of the 
diversion retrofit include relocation of meltwater lednian stoneflies 
out of the construction zone and using appropriate sedimentation 
control measures. Given the recent survey information indicating high 
densities of meltwater lednian stonefly in Logan Creek and the use of 
appropriate minimization measures, we have no evidence that the 
existing water diversion or retrofit project are a threat to meltwater 
lednian stonefly at the population level.
    We do not have any information indicating that maintenance and 
improvement of other GNP facilities and structures is affecting either 
meltwater lednian or western glacier stoneflies or their habitat. While 
roads and trails provide avenues for recreationists (primarily hikers) 
to access backcountry areas, most habitats for both the meltwater 
lednian stonefly and the western glacier stonefly are located in steep, 
rocky areas that are not easily accessible, even from backcountry 
trails. Most documented occurrences of both species are in remote 
locations upstream from human-built structures, thereby precluding any 
impacts to stonefly habitat from maintenance or improvement of these 
structures. Given the above information, we conclude that maintenance 
and improvement of GNP facilities and structures, and the resulting 
improved access into the backcountry for recreationists, does not 
constitute a threat to the meltwater lednian or western glacier 
stonefly or their habitat now or in the near future.
Glacier National Park Visitor Impacts
    In 2015, GNP hosted 2.3 million visitors (NPS 2015). Many of the 
recent collection sites for the meltwater lednian stonefly (e.g., Logan 
and Reynolds Creeks) are near visitor centers or adjacent to popular 
hiking trails. Theoretically, human activity (wading) in streams by 
anglers or hikers could disturb meltwater lednian stonefly habitat. 
However, we consider it unlikely that many GNP visitors would actually 
wade in stream habitats where the species has been collected, because 
the sites are in small, high-elevation streams situated in rugged 
terrain, and most would not be suitable for angling due to the absence 
of fish. In addition, the sites are typically snow covered into late 
July or August (Giersch 2010a, pers. comm.), making them accessible for 
only a few months annually. We also note that the most accessible 
collection sites in Logan Creek near the Logan Pass Visitor Center and 
the Going-to-the-Sun Road are currently closed to public use and entry 
to protect resident vegetation (NPS 2010, pp. J5, J24). We conclude 
that impacts to the meltwater lednian and western glacier stonefly and 
their habitat from visitors to GNP do not constitute a threat now or in 
the near future.
Wilderness Area Visitor Impacts
    Three populations of meltwater lednian stonefly are located in 
wilderness areas adjacent to GNP. Visitor activities in wilderness 
areas are similar to those described for GNP, namely hiking and 
angling. No recreational hiking trails are present near the two 
populations of meltwater lednian stonefly in the Bob Marshall 
wilderness and Great Bear wilderness (USFS 2015, p. 1) or near the 
population occurring in the Mission Mountain Tribal Wilderness. Similar 
to GNP, stream reaches that harbor the meltwater lednian stonefly in 
these wilderness areas are fishless, so wade anglers are not expected 
to disturb stonefly habitat. Given the remote nature of and limited 
access to meltwater stonefly habitat in wilderness areas adjacent to 
GNP, we do not anticipate any current or future threats to meltwater 
lednian stoneflies or their habitat from visitor use.
Summary of Factor A
    In summary, we expect climate change to fragment or degrade all 
habitat types that are currently occupied by meltwater lednian and 
western glacier stoneflies, albeit at different rates. Flows in 
meltwater streams are expected to be affected first, by becoming 
periodically intermittent and warmer. Drying of meltwater streams and 
water temperature increases, even periodically, are expected to reduce 
available habitat for the meltwater lednian stonefly by 81 percent by 
2030. After 2030, flow reductions and water temperature increases due 
to continued warming are expected to further reduce or degrade 
remaining refugia habitat (alpine springs and glacial lake outlets) for 
both meltwater lednian and western glacier stoneflies. Predicted 
habitat changes are based on observed patterns of flow and water 
temperature in similar watersheds within GNP and elsewhere where 
glaciers have already melted.
    In addition, we have observed a declining trend in western glacier 
stonefly distribution over the last 50 years, as air temperatures have 
warmed in GNP. We expect the meltwater lednian stonefly to follow a 
similar trajectory, given the similarities between the two stonefly 
species and their meltwater habitats. Consequently, we conclude that 
habitat fragmentation and degradation resulting from climate change is 
a threat to both the meltwater lednian and western glacier stoneflies 
now and into the near future. Given the minimal overlap between 
stonefly habitat and most existing infrastructure or backcountry 
activities (e.g., hiking), we conclude any impacts from these 
activities do not constitute a threat to either the meltwater lednian 
stonefly or the western glacier stonefly. The sole water diversion 
present on Logan Creek and the upcoming retrofit project also do not 
appear to be threats to meltwater lednian stonefly, given that recent 
surveys have documented high densities of meltwater lednian stonefly 
near the diversion, and the expected use of appropriate minimization 
measures for the retrofit project.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    We are not aware of any threats involving the overutilization or 
collection of the meltwater lednian or western glacier stonefly for any 
commercial, recreational, or educational purposes at this time. We are 
aware that specimens of both species are

[[Page 68391]]

occasionally collected for scientific purposes to determine their 
distribution and abundance (e.g., Baumann and Stewart 1980, pp. 655, 
658; NPS 2009; Muhlfeld et al. 2011, entire; Giersch et al. 2015, 
entire). However both species are comparatively abundant in remaining 
habitats (e.g., NPS 2009; Giersch 2016, pers. comm.), and we have no 
information to suggest that past, current, or any collections in the 
near future will result in population-level effects to either species. 
Consequently, we do not consider overutilization for commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes to be a threat to the 
meltwater lednian or western glacier stonefly now or in the near 
future.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

    We are not aware of any diseases that affect the meltwater lednian 
or western glacier stonefly. Therefore, we do not consider disease to 
be a threat to these species now or in the near future.
    We presume that nymph and adult meltwater lednian and western 
glacier stoneflies may occasionally be subject to predation by bird 
species such as American dipper (Cinclus mexicanus) or predatory 
aquatic insects. Fish and amphibians are not potential predators 
because these species do not occur in the stream reaches containing the 
meltwater lednian stonefly and the western glacier stonefly. The 
American dipper prefers to feed on aquatic invertebrates in fast-
moving, clear alpine streams (MNHP 2010b), and the species is native to 
GNP. As such, predation by American dipper on these species would 
represent a natural ecological interaction in the GNP (see Synergistic 
Effects section below for analysis on potential predation/habitat 
fragmentation synergy). Similarly, predation by other aquatic insects 
would represent a natural ecological interaction between the species. 
We have no evidence that the extent of such predation, if it occurs, 
represents any population-level threat to either meltwater lednian or 
western glacier stonefly, especially given that densities of 
individuals within many of these populations are high. Therefore, we do 
not consider predation to be a threat to these species now or in the 
near future.
    In summary, the best available scientific and commercial 
information does not indicate that the meltwater lednian or western 
glacier stonefly is affected by any diseases, or that natural predation 
occurs at levels likely to negatively affect either species at the 
population level. Therefore, we do not find disease or predation to be 
threats to the meltwater lednian or western glacier stonefly now or in 
the near future.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act requires the 
Service to take into account ``those efforts, if any, being made by any 
State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or 
foreign nation, to protect such species....'' We consider relevant 
Federal, State, and Tribal laws and regulations when evaluating the 
status of the species. Only existing ordinances, regulations, and laws 
that have a direct connection to a law are enforceable and permitted 
are discussed in this section. No local, State, or Federal laws 
specifically protect the meltwater lednian or western glacier stonefly.
National Environmental Policy Act
    All Federal agencies are required to adhere to the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for 
projects they fund, authorize, or carry out. NEPA is a procedural 
statute, which requires Federal agencies to formally document and 
publicly disclose the environmental impacts of their actions and 
management decisions. Documentation for NEPA is provided in an 
environmental impact statement, an environmental assessment, or a 
categorical exclusion. NEPA does not require that adverse impacts be 
mitigated. Our review finds that it is likely that there would be very 
few activities that would trigger NEPA's disclosure requirements. 
However, NEPA does not require protection of a species or its habitat, 
and does not require the selection of a particular course of action.
National Park Service Organic Act
    The NPS Organic Act of 1916 54 U.S.C. 100101 (et seq.), as amended, 
states that the NPS ``shall promote and regulate the use of the 
National Park System by means and measures that conform to the 
fundamental purpose of the System units, which purpose is to conserve 
the scenery, natural and historic objects, and wild life in the System 
units and to provide for the enjoyment of the scenery, natural and 
historic objects, and wild life in such manner and by such means as 
will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.'' 
Given that the vast majority of occurrences of the meltwater lednian 
stonefly (>90 percent) and all occurrences of the western glacier 
stonefly are within the boundaries of GNP, the NPS Organic Act is one 
Federal law of particular relevance to both species. Although the GNP 
does not have a management plan specific to either stonefly species, 
the habitats occupied by the species remain relatively pristine and 
generally free from direct human impacts from Park visitors (see Threat 
Factor A). We also note that the most accessible meltwater lednian 
stonefly collection sites in Logan Creek near the Logan Pass Visitor 
Center and the Going-to-the-Sun Road are currently closed to public use 
and entry to protect resident vegetation pursuant to GNP management 
regulations (NPS 2010, pp. J5, J24).
Regulatory Mechanisms To Limit Glacier Loss
    National and international regulatory mechanisms to comprehensively 
address the causes of climate change are continuing to be developed. 
Domestic U.S. efforts relative to climate change focus on 
implementation of the Clean Air Act, and continued studies, programs, 
support for developing new technologies, and use of incentives for 
supporting reductions in emissions. While not regulatory, international 
efforts to address climate change globally began with the United 
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), adopted in May 
1992. The stated objective of the UNFCCC is the stabilization of GHG 
concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent 
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. However, 
we note that greenhouse gas loading in the atmosphere can have a 
considerable lag effect on climate, so that what has already been 
emitted will have impacts out to 2100 and beyond (IPCC 2014, pp. 56-
57).
National Forest Management Act
    The National Forest Management Act (NFMA; 16 U.S.C. 1600-1614, as 
amended) requires the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture to 
develop and implement resource management plans for each unit of the 
National Forest System. The Forest Service has developed a land 
management plan for the Flathead National Forest, including the 
wilderness portions containing meltwater stonefly populations, that 
designates conservation of sensitive, endangered and threatened species 
as a high priority (USFS 2001, p. III-109). In addition, only natural 
agents (fire, wind, insects, etc.) are permitted to alter the 
vegetation or habitat within the wilderness portions of the Flathead 
National Forest (USFS 2001, p. III-109). As such, the wilderness areas 
on Flathead National Forest are managed for natural ecological 
processes to maintain wilderness character.

[[Page 68392]]

Wilderness Act
    The Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136, 78 Stat. 890) 
provides that areas designated by Congress as ``wilderness areas'' 
``shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American 
people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and 
enjoyment as wilderness. . . .'' The Act also directed the Secretary of 
the Interior to review and make recommendations to the President about 
the suitability of particular lands for preservation as wilderness, 
with the final decision being made by Congress (16 U.S.C. 1132(c)). 
These lands are managed under the nonimpairment standard to ensure that 
they retain their wilderness character until Congress makes a decision. 
Areas where the meltwater lednian stonefly occurs within Flathead 
National Forest are designated as wilderness. Areas where the meltwater 
lednian and western glacier stoneflies occur within GNP were nominated 
for protection as wilderness in 1974, but Congress has not rendered a 
decision. Pursuant to NPS policy, the proposed wilderness lands are 
managed as wilderness (NPS Management Policy Sec.  6.3 (2006)).
    The Wilderness Act establishes restrictions on land use activities 
that can be undertaken on a designated area. In particular, such lands 
are managed to preserve their wilderness character, and many activities 
that might otherwise be permitted are prohibited on lands designated as 
wilderness (e.g., commercial enterprise, roads, logging, mining, oil/
gas exploration) (16 U.S.C. 1133(c)).
Flathead Indian Reservation Fishing, Bird Hunting, and Recreation 
Regulations
    The Confederated Kootenai Salish Tribes manage land on the Flathead 
Reservation and are currently implementing ``Flathead Indian 
Reservation Fishing, Bird Hunting, and Recreation Regulations,'' which, 
in part, regulate recreation in the Mission Mountain Tribal Wilderness 
Area (MMTW), where one population of the meltwater lednian stonefly 
occurs. Some relevant regulations preclude the removal of natural items 
from the MMTW and restrict certain activities within 30 m (100 ft) of 
water sources.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued 
Existence

Small Population Size
    A principle of conservation biology is that the presence of larger 
and more productive (resilient) populations can reduce overall 
extinction risk. To minimize extinction risk, genetic diversity should 
be maintained (Fausch et al. 2006, p. 23; Allendorf et al. 1997, 
entire). Both meltwater lednian and western glacier stonefly 
populations exist as presumably isolated populations, given that most 
populations are separated by considerable distances (i.e., miles) and 
stoneflies in general are poor dispersers (on the order of tens of 
meters). Population isolation can limit or preclude genetic exchange 
between populations (Fausch et al. 2006, p. 8). However, densities 
within many of these populations are high (Giersch 2016, pers. comm.), 
which may offset or delay, at least in part, deleterious genetic 
effects from population isolation. Given the lack of genetic 
information for both meltwater lednian and western glacier stonefly, 
and the relatively high densities observed in many of the populations, 
we conclude that the effects of small population size (as a standalone 
issue) is not a threat now or in the near future.
Restricted Range and Stochastic (Random) Events
    Narrow endemic species, such as the meltwater lednian stonefly and 
the western glacier stonefly, can be at risk of extirpation from random 
events such as fire, flooding, or drought. Random events occurring 
within the narrow range of endemic species have the potential to 
disproportionately affect large numbers of individuals or populations, 
relative to a more widely dispersed species. The risk to meltwater 
lednian and western glacier stonefly populations from fire appears low, 
given that most alpine environments in GNP have few trees and little 
vegetation to burn. The risk to both species from flooding also appears 
low, given the relatively small watershed areas available to capture 
and channel precipitation upslope of most stonefly populations.
    The risk to the meltwater lednian stonefly from drought appears 
moderate in the near term because 20 of the 58 known populations occupy 
habitats supplied by seasonal snowmelt, which would be expected to 
decline during drought. For the western glacier stonefly, the threat of 
drought is also moderate because one of the four known populations is 
likely to be affected by variations in seasonal precipitation and 
snowpack. The risk of drought in the longer term (after 2030 and when 
complete loss of glaciers is predicted) appears high for both stonefly 
species. Once glaciers melt, drought or extended drought could result 
in dewatering events in some habitats. Dewatering events would likely 
extirpate entire populations almost instantaneously. Natural 
recolonization of habitats affected by drought is unlikely, given the 
poor dispersal abilities of both stonefly species and general isolation 
of populations relative to one another (Hauer et al. 2007, pp. 108-
110). Thus, we conclude that drought (a stochastic event) will be a 
threat to both the meltwater lednian stonefly and the western glacier 
stonefly in the near future.
Summary of Factor E
    The effect of small population size does not appear to be a current 
or future threat to the meltwater lednian stonefly or the western 
glacier stonefly, given the high densities of individuals within most 
populations. However, the restricted range of the meltwater lednian and 
western glacier stonefly make both species vulnerable to the stochastic 
threat of drought. Although not considered a current threat, drought 
will likely affect both species negatively within the near future. 
There is potential for extirpation of entire populations of both 
species as a result of dewatering events caused by drought, after the 
complete loss of glaciers predicted by 2030. Thus, drought is 
considered a threat to both the meltwater lednian stonefly and the 
western glacier stonefly within the near future.

Synergistic Effects

    Climate change may interact with other potential stressors and 
compound negative effects on meltwater lednian stonefly and western 
glacier stonefly populations. We limit our discussion here to factors 
that are not implicitly linked, and whose effects are not accounted 
for, in our previous analysis regarding climate change.
Climate Change and Predation
    Previously, we presumed that nymph and adult meltwater lednian and 
western glacier stoneflies may occasionally be subject to predation by 
bird species such as American dipper or predatory aquatic insects. As 
such, predation by American dipper or predatory aquatic insects on 
these species would represent a natural ecological interaction in the 
GNP and surrounding areas. However, habitat fragmentation and 
degradation resulting from climate change may create different 
scenarios where populations of the meltwater lednian stonefly and the 
western glacier stonefly remain in isolated pockets of habitat, in 
thermally marginal habitat, or both, and are

[[Page 68393]]

exposed to relative increased levels of predation. In such cases, the 
ability of the meltwater lednian stonefly or the western glacier 
stonefly to persist could theoretically be compromised by the 
cumulative effects resulting from the two pressures acting 
synergistically. Below, we evaluate the possibility of these scenarios 
in more detail.
    In the first scenario, the meltwater lednian stonefly or the 
western glacier stonefly may occupy small, isolated pockets (or pools) 
of habitat resulting from fragmentation (e.g., springheads). Under this 
scenario, predation from both American dippers and aquatic predatory 
insects could result in population-level effects of either species in 
these habitats. However, this situation appears unlikely for several 
reasons. First, the microhabitat features (rocks, bark) present that 
allow the meltwater lednian stonefly and the western glacier stonefly 
to evade predation would likely still be present, albeit in smaller 
quantities. Thus, even with increased predation pressure within a 
confined stream pool, both species would likely still utilize available 
habitat features to survive and fulfill life-history needs. Second, 
assuming thermal regimes are still within physiological limits, both 
stonefly species would likely use the same behavioral strategies they 
currently use to persist (e.g., timing of foraging, resting, and 
reproducing). In this scenario, population densities could potentially 
be reduced beyond what would be expected in more contiguous habitat, 
but population-level effects from predation appear unlikely, especially 
given the high densities of individuals within many of these 
populations.
    In a second scenario, physical habitat extent may remain intact, 
but thermal conditions may be altered (e.g., water temperature has 
increased significantly). In this case, increased water temperatures 
may interfere with the ability of the meltwater lednian stonefly or the 
western glacier stonefly to rely on behavioral strategies to evade 
predation effectively. Individuals may be forced to forage or move at 
inopportune times, resulting in higher predation levels and likely 
lower reproductive success. However, increases in water temperature may 
also affect the behavioral strategies (foraging) of aquatic predatory 
insects similar to that of the meltwater lednian and western glacier 
stonefly. It appears unlikely that the predatory abilities of American 
dipper would be affected by increased water temperature. However, it is 
unclear how efficient American dippers are as stonefly predators and 
whether they could exert enough predation pressure to rise to a 
population-level effect for the meltwater lednian and western glacier 
stonefly.
    If both fragmented habitat and thermally modified habitat are 
present in tandem, the resulting effects of predation would likely be 
greater than those described for either previous scenario. The 
intensity of predation would be expected to increase as a result of 
more fragmented habitat, and from behavioral changes potentially 
increasing the vulnerability of meltwater lednian and western glacier 
stoneflies to predators. Mortality of individual stoneflies would 
likely be higher in this scenario than for either previous scenario. 
However, it is still unclear what the effects of increased water 
temperatures would be on aquatic predators and whether the efficiency 
of avian predators would increase to the point where a population-level 
effect would be observed in meltwater lednian stonefly or western 
glacier stonefly populations. While the narrow range of the species and 
the small areas they inhabit make entire populations vulnerable to 
extirpation due to the effects of climate change, the high densities of 
individuals found within many of these populations make the effects of 
predation less likely to have population-level impacts. Therefore, 
cumulative effects resulting from climate change and predation are not 
considered a threat to any population of meltwater lednian and western 
glacier stoneflies now or in the near future.
Climate Change, Habitat Fragmentation, Stochastic Events, and Small 
Population Size
    Meltwater habitats used by meltwater lednian stonefly and western 
glacier stonefly are expected to become increasingly fragmented due to 
climate change. One consequence of increasing habitat fragmentation is 
increasing isolation of existing stonefly populations, relative to one 
another. As isolation among stonefly populations increases, smaller 
populations may become more vulnerable to extirpation due to stochastic 
events such as drought. In the event of local extirpations from 
stochastic events, recolonization of previously occupied habitat 
appears unlikely, given the poor dispersal capabilities of stoneflies 
and isolation of populations in increasingly fragmented habitat. 
However, while interactions between and among these factors are likely, 
it appears more evident that habitat degradation in the form of reduced 
flows and increased water temperatures will play a larger and more 
immediate role in determining the persistence of meltwater lednian and 
western glacier stonefly populations. With the potential to extirpate 
entire populations almost instantaneously, dewatering events resulting 
from loss of meltwater sources is likely to be the primary driver 
affecting populations of both stonefly species in the near future. 
While the interactions between climate change, habitat fragmentation, 
stochastic events, and small population size are likely to occur, the 
timescale at which we would expect population-level threats to occur is 
far beyond the timescale that habitat degradation (dewatering in 
particular) is expected to act on both species at the population level. 
Thus, at this time, we do not consider the interactions between and 
among climate change, habitat fragmentation, stochastic events, and 
small population size to be a threat.

Determination

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding 
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based 
on (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of 
the above threat factors, singly or in combination.
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the meltwater lednian stonefly and the western glacier stonefly. 
Habitat fragmentation and degradation in the form of declining 
streamflows and increasing water temperatures resulting from climate 
change are currently affecting habitat for the meltwater lednian 
stonefly and the western glacier stonefly (Factor A). Habitat with a 
high probability of occupancy for the meltwater lednian stonefly is 
modeled to decrease 81 percent by 2030 (Muhlfeld et al. 2011, p. 342). 
Due to the anticipated near-term reduction of meltwater from seasonal 
snowpack and future reduction of flow from other meltwater sources in 
the foreseeable future, drought is expected to affect meltwater lednian 
stonefly and western glacier stonefly populations occupying habitat 
supplied by those meltwater sources (Factor E). As a result of this 
anticipated loss of habitat and

[[Page 68394]]

populations, only a few refugia populations are expected to persist in 
the longer term. Recolonization of habitats where known populations of 
either species are extirpated is not anticipated, given the poor 
dispersal abilities of both species. Threats to meltwater lednian 
stonefly and western glacier stonefly habitat are currently occurring 
rangewide and are expected to continue into the foreseeable future.
    The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to 
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range 
within the foreseeable future.'' We find that the meltwater lednian 
stonefly is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range within the foreseeable future.
    The meltwater lednian stonefly occupies a relatively narrow range 
of alpine habitats that are expected to become fragmented and degraded 
by climate change. Meltwater lednian stonefly habitat and populations 
are threatened by several factors that are expected to reduce the 
overall viability of the species. Therefore, on the basis of the best 
available scientific and commercial information, we propose listing the 
meltwater lednian stonefly as threatened in accordance with sections 
3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. We find that an endangered species status 
is not appropriate for the meltwater lednian stonefly because the 
species is not currently in danger of extinction because it faces 
relatively low near-term risk of extinction. Although the effects of 
climate change and drought are currently affecting, and expected to 
continue affecting, the alpine habitats occupied by the meltwater 
lednian stonefly, meltwater sources are expected to persist in the form 
of alpine springs and glacial lake outlets after the predicted melting 
of most glaciers in GNP by 2030. Densities and estimated abundance of 
the meltwater lednian stonefly are currently relatively high. In 
addition, some meltwater lednian stonefly populations continue to 
persist in meltwater habitats supplied by seasonal snowpack. These 
findings suggest that as climate change continues to impact stonefly 
habitat, some populations will likely persist in refugia areas at least 
through the foreseeable future. Thus, we find that the definition of 
threatened better characterizes the current status of the meltwater 
lednian stonefly and the likelihood that they will become in danger of 
extinction in the foreseeable future.
    We also find that the western glacier stonefly is likely to become 
endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within 
the foreseeable future. Similar to meltwater lednian stonefly, the 
western glacier stonefly occupies a relatively narrow range of alpine 
habitats that are expected to become fragmented and degraded by climate 
change. Western glacier stonefly habitat and populations are threatened 
by several factors that are expected to reduce the overall viability of 
the species. Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific 
and commercial information, we propose listing the western glacier 
stonefly as threatened in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of 
the Act. We find that an endangered species status is not appropriate 
for the western glacier stonefly because the species is not currently 
in danger of extinction because it faces relatively low near-term risk 
of extinction. Although the effects of climate change and drought are 
currently affecting, and expected to continue affecting, the alpine 
habitats occupied by the western glacier stonefly, meltwater sources 
are expected to persist in the form of alpine springs and glacial lake 
outlets after the predicted melting of most glaciers in GNP by 2030. 
Although only four populations of western glacier stonefly are known, 
densities and estimated abundance of the western glacier stonefly 
within those populations are currently relatively high. These findings 
suggest that as climate change continues to impact stonefly habitat, 
some populations will likely persist in refugia areas at least through 
the foreseeable future. Thus, we find that the definition of threatened 
better characterizes the current status of the western glacier stonefly 
and the likelihood that they will become in danger of extinction in the 
foreseeable future.
    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that the 
meltwater lednian stonefly and the western glacier stonefly are 
threatened throughout all of their range, no portion of their range can 
be ``significant'' for purposes of the definitions of ``endangered 
species'' and ``threatened species.'' A detailed explanation of 
``significance'' is included in our Final Policy on Interpretation of 
the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in the Endangered 
Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened 
Species'' (79 FR 37577, July 1, 2014).

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and 
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private 
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the 
States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried 
out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and 
the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, 
below.
    The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered 
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The 
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these 
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of 
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop 
and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the 
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the 
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and 
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a 
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning 
components of their ecosystems.
    Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline 
shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final 
recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation 
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to 
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address 
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive 
information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies 
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for 
downlisting or delisting, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. 
Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate 
their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of 
implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species 
experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and 
stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When 
completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final 
recovery plan will be available on our Web site

[[Page 68395]]

(http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Montana Ecological 
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, 
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat 
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive 
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The 
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on 
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires 
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands. 
If these species are listed, funding for recovery actions will be 
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State 
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the 
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, 
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Montana would be 
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote 
the protection or recovery of the meltwater lednian stonefly and the 
western glacier stonefly. Information on our grant programs that are 
available to aid species recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
    Although the meltwater lednian and the western glacier stonefly are 
only proposed for listing under the Act at this time, please let us 
know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for 
these species. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new 
information on these species whenever it becomes available and any 
information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an 
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical 
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this 
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR 
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in 
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a 
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 
Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or 
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the 
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a 
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the 
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the 
Service.
    Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require 
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding 
paragraph include management, any other landscape-altering activities, 
or research permit applications on Federal lands administered by the 
National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service.
    Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Service has discretion to issue 
regulations that we find necessary and advisable to provide for the 
conservation of threatened species. The Act and its implementing 
regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions 
that apply to threatened wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) 
of the Act, as applied to threatened wildlife and codified at 50 CFR 
17.31, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of 
the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of 
these) threatened wildlife within the United States or on the high 
seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive, 
carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the 
course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate 
or foreign commerce any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, 
sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has 
been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to employees of the 
Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land 
management agencies, and State conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations 
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.32. With regard to 
threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: 
for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the 
species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful 
activities. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the 
prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
    It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at 
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not 
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed 
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the 
species proposed for listing.
    Based on the best available information, the following activities 
may potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this 
list is not comprehensive:
    (1) Unauthorized handling or collecting of the species;
    (2) Destruction/alteration of the species' habitat, whether aquatic 
or riparian.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Montana 
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
    (b) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area 
occupied by the species as: An area that may generally be delineated 
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e., 
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part 
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g., 
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically 
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement,

[[Page 68396]]

habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and 
transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population 
pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may 
include regulated taking.

Prudency Determination

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical 
habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or 
threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that 
the designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of 
the following situations exist:
    (1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, 
and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of threat to the species, or
    (2) such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to 
the species. In determining whether a designation would not be 
beneficial, the factors the Service may consider include but are not 
limited to: Whether the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a 
threat to the species, or whether any areas meet the definition of 
``critical habitat.''
    As discussed above, there is currently no imminent threat of take 
attributed to collection or vandalism identified under Factor B for 
this species, and identification and mapping of critical habitat is not 
expected to initiate any such threat. In the absence of finding that 
the designation of critical habitat would increase threats to a 
species, we next determine whether such designation of critical habitat 
would not be beneficial to the species. In our analysis above, we 
determined that there are habitat-based threats to the meltwater 
lednian stonefly and the western glacier stonefly identified under 
Factor A. Therefore, we find that the designation of critical habitat 
would be beneficial to the meltwater lednian stonefly and the western 
glacier stonefly through the provisions of section 7 of the Act. 
Because we have determined that the designation of critical habitat 
will not likely increase the degree of threat to the species and would 
be beneficial, we find that designation of critical habitat is prudent 
for the meltwater lednian stonefly and the western glacier stonefly.

Critical Habitat Determinability

    Having determined that designation is prudent, under section 
4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for meltwater 
lednian stonefly and western glacier stonefly is determinable. Our 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(2)) further state that critical habitat 
is not determinable when one or both of the following situations 
exists:
    (i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking, or
    (ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well 
known to identify any area that meets the definition of ``critical 
habitat.''
    When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the 
Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation 
(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)). In this instance, we find that critical 
habitat is not determinable at this time because data sufficient to 
perform the required analyses are lacking, as explained below.
    New information on western glacier stonefly was received late in 
the status review process (see Distribution and Abundance above), and 
this information has not yet been analyzed or incorporated. 
Consequently, a careful assessment of the new biological information is 
still ongoing. In the near future, we will begin reassessing which 
specific features and areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species and, therefore, meet the definition of critical habitat. This 
evaluation is needed in order to determine where to designate critical 
habitat for the western glacier stonefly. Once we have determined where 
to designate critical habitat for both species, we must also analyze 
the economic impacts of our proposed designation. The Service has 
conducted an economic analysis but that data may now be incomplete 
given the new information. The information sufficient to perform a 
required analysis of the impacts of the designation is lacking, and, 
therefore, we find designation of critical habitat to be not 
determinable at this time. Accordingly, we will publish a proposed 
critical habitat rule for both species in the near future when we 
finish our assessment of the new biological information.

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (1) Be logically organized;
    (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us 
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For 
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs 
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, 
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be 
prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or 
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a 
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal 
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to tribes. As part of our responsibilities to 
communicate meaningfully and work directly with Tribal Governments, we 
informed the Confederated Kootenai Salish Tribe (CKST) of our intent to 
conduct a status review on meltwater

[[Page 68397]]

lednian stonefly, and solicited any information the Tribe may have 
regarding the sole population of meltwater lednian stonefly occurring 
in Tribal wilderness on CKST land.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-
2016-0086 and upon request from the Montana Ecological Services Field 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of 
the Montana Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; unless otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec.  17.11(h), add an entry for ``Stonefly, meltwater lednian '' 
and an entry for ``Stonefly, western glacier '' to the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical order under INSECTS 
to read as set forth below:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Listing citations
           Common name              Scientific name        Where listed          Status        and  applicable
                                                                                                    rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
    Insects
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Stonefly, meltwater lednian.....  Lednia tumana......  Wherever found.....               T   [Insert Federal
                                                                                              Register citation
                                                                                              when published as
                                                                                              a final rule]
Stonefly, western glacier.......  Zapada glacier.....  Wherever found.....               T   [Insert Federal
                                                                                              Register citation
                                                                                              when published as
                                                                                              a final rule]
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: September 12, 2016
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-23710 Filed 10-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P