[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64210-64227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25195]


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

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; Threatened Species 
Status for Meltwater Lednian Stonefly and Western Glacier Stonefly With 
a Section 4(d) Rule

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine 
threatened species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
(Act), as amended, for the meltwater lednian stonefly (Lednia tumana) 
and the western glacier stonefly (Zapada glacier), both aquatic species 
from alpine streams and springs. Meltwater lednian stoneflies are found 
in Montana and Canada, and western glacier stoneflies are found in 
Montana and Wyoming. The effect of this regulation will be to add these 
species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. We also 
finalize a rule under the authority of section 4(d) of the Act that 
provides measures that are necessary and advisable to provide for the 
conservation of these species. We have also determined that designation 
of critical habitat for these species is not prudent.

DATES: This rule becomes effective December 23, 2019.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available at http://www.regulations.gov 
in Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2016-0086 and at https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/meltwaterLednianStonefly.php and at https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/westernGlacierStonefly.php on the internet. 
Comments and materials we received, as well as supporting documentation 
we used in preparing this rule, are available for public inspection at 
http://www.regulations.gov. Comments, materials, and documentation that 
we considered in this rulemaking will be available by appointment, 
during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Montana Ecological Services Office, 585 Shepard Way, Suite 1, Helena, 
MT 59601; 406-449-5225.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jodi Bush, Office Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Ecological Services Field Office, 
585 Shepard Way, Suite 1, Helena, MT 59601, by telephone 406-449-5225. 
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may call the 
Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act, a 
species may warrant protection through listing if it is endangered or 
threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 
Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species can only be 
completed by issuing a rule.
    What this document does. This rule will add the meltwater lednian 
stonefly (Lednia tumana) and western glacier stonefly (Zapada glacier) 
as threatened species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 
in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.11(h) with 
a rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act (hereafter referred to as a 
``4(d) rule'') at 50 CFR 17.47.
    The basis for our action. Under the Endangered Species 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 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).
    Based on empirical evidence, most glaciers supplying cold water to 
meltwater lednian and western glacier stonefly habitats in Glacier 
National Park (GNP) are projected to melt by 2030. As a result, 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). A decrease in distribution of western glacier stonefly has 
already been documented. Drought is expected to further reduce the 
amount of habitat occupied by meltwater lednian stonefly and western 
glacier stonefly, due to reductions of meltwater from seasonal snowpack 
and anticipated future reduction of flow from other meltwater sources 
in the foreseeable future (Factor E). As a result of this anticipated 
loss of habitat, only a few refugia streams and springs are expected to 
persist in the long term. Recolonization of intermittent habitats where 
known occurrences of either species are extirpated is not anticipated, 
given the poor dispersal abilities of similar stonefly species. Threats 
to meltwater lednian stonefly and western glacier stonefly habitat are 
currently occurring rangewide, are based on empirical evidence of past 
and current glacial melting, and are expected to continue into the 
foreseeable future.
    Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from seven 
objective and independent specialists (and received three responses) to 
ensure that our determination is based on scientifically sound data, 
assumptions, and analyses. As directed by the Service's Peer Review 
Policy dated July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270) and a recent memo updating the 
peer review policy for listing and recovery actions (August 22, 2016), 
we invited these peer reviewers to comment on our listing proposal. We 
also considered all comments and information received during two public 
comment periods. All comments received during the peer review process 
and the public comment periods have either been incorporated throughout 
this rule or addressed in the Summary of Comments and Recommendations 
section.

Previous Federal Action

    Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the meltwater lednian 
stonefly and western glacier stonefly (81 FR 68379, October 4, 2016) 
for a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning these 
species prior to October 4, 2016. In that proposed rule, we explained 
that we received new information on the western glacier stonefly in 
August 2016, indicating a larger range than previously known. However, 
due to a settlement agreement deadline, we were unable to fully 
incorporate and analyze the new information before publishing our 
October 4, 2016, 12-month finding and proposed listing rule. In March 
2017, we received additional information (separate from the information 
received in August 2016) on the western glacier stonefly, also 
indicating a larger range

[[Page 64211]]

than previously known. On October 31, 2017, we reopened the comment 
period on our proposed listing rule to allow the public to comment on 
both sets of new information (82 FR 50360). Now that we have had the 
opportunity to fully consider this new information from August 2016 and 
March 2017, we have incorporated it into this final rule.
    Our October 4, 2016, proposed rule included a determination that 
critical habitat for the meltwater lednian stonefly and western glacier 
stonefly was prudent but not determinable at that time (81 FR 68379). 
Since that time, the Service finalized regulations related to listing 
species and designating critical habitat (84 FR 45020, August 27, 
2019), which revised the regulations that implement section 4 of the 
Act and clarify circumstances in which critical habitat may be found 
not prudent. Regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) provide the 
circumstances when critical habitat may be not prudent, and we have 
determined that a designation of critical habitat for these species is 
not prudent, as discussed further below.
    Our October 4, 2016, proposed rule also referenced a section of the 
regulation that provided threatened species with the same protections 
as endangered species also known as ``blanket rules'' (50 CFR 17.31). 
The Service has since published regulations on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 
44753), amending 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.71 that state ``the blanket rules 
will no longer be in place, but the Secretary will still be required to 
make a decision about what regulations to put in place for the 
species.'' While the Service always had the ability to promulgate 
species-specific 4(d) rules for threatened species, moving forward we 
will promulgate a species-specific 4(d) rule for each species that we 
determine meets the definition of a threatened species. As explained 
below, in the preamble to our 2016 proposed rule, we determined that a 
rule that included the prohibitions set forth in 50 CFR 17.21 for 
endangered species would be necessary and advisable for the 
conservation of the meltwater lednian stonefly and the western glacier 
stonefly. Consequently, we are promulgating a species-specific 4(d) 
rule that outlines the protections that were described in the 2016 
proposed rule; see Provisions of the 4(d) Rule, below.

I. Final Listing Determination

Background

    Both the meltwater lednian stonefly (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 western glacier stonefly (Baumann 1975, p. 30; 
Stark 1996, entire; Stark et al. 2009, p. 8) are recognized as valid 
species by the scientific community. Both stonefly species begin life 
as eggs, hatch into aquatic nymphs, and later mature into winged 
adults, surviving briefly on land before reproducing and dying. 
Meltwater habitat for meltwater lednian stonefly and western glacier 
stonefly is supplied by glaciers and rock glaciers, as well as by four 
other sources: (1) Seasonal snow, (2) perennial snow, (3) alpine 
springs, and (4) ice masses (Giersch et al. 2017, p. 2584). Please 
refer to the proposed listing rule for the meltwater lednian stonefly 
and western glacier stonefly (81 FR 68379, October 4, 2016) for a full 
discussion of taxonomy, species descriptions, and biology. We have 
received no new substantive information on those topics since that 
time.
Distribution and Abundance
Meltwater Lednian Stonefly
    Meltwater lednian stoneflies are known to occur in northwestern 
Montana and southwest Alberta (Giersch et al. 2017; p. 2582). 
Specifically, meltwater lednian stoneflies are known to occur in 113 
streams: 109 in Glacier National Park (GNP), 2 south of GNP on National 
Forest land, 1 south of GNP on tribal land (Figure 1; Giersch et al. 
2017; p. 2582), and 1 north of GNP in Waterton Lakes National Park in 
Alberta, Canada (Donald and Anderson 1977, p. 114; Baumann and 
Kondratieff 2010, p. 315; Giersch 2017, pers. comm.). In the proposed 
rule (81 FR 68379, October 4, 2016), we indicated meltwater lednian 
stoneflies were known from historical collections in Waterton Lakes 
National Park in Canada, but were not known to be extant there. 
However, recent surveys conducted after the proposed rule was published 
have also documented the species in the same watershed in Waterton 
Lakes National Park where they were sampled historically (Giersch 2017, 
pers. comm.). Meltwater lednian stoneflies occupy relatively short 
reaches of streams [mean = 592 meters (m) (1,942 feet; ft); standard 
deviation = 455 m (1,493 ft)] below meltwater sources (for description, 
see Habitat section below; Giersch et al. 2017; p. 2582). 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; National Park Service (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, we 
estimated the abundance of meltwater lednian stonefly in the millions 
of individuals; however, no population trend information is available 
for the meltwater lednian stonefly.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 64212]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21NO19.013

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

[[Page 64213]]

less numerous than the meltwater lednian stonefly.
    The recent discovery and subsequent genetic confirmation of western 
glacier stoneflies in streams in GTNP and the Absaroka/Beartooth 
Wilderness has increased the known range of the species by about 500 
kilometers (km) (~311 miles (mi)) southward (Hotaling et al. 2017, 
entire; Giersch et al. 2017, p. 2585). However, western glacier 
stoneflies have decreased in distribution among and within six streams 
in GNP where the species was known to occur in the 1960s and 1970s 
(Giersch et al. 2015, p. 58).
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21NO19.014

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, which 
appears to be similar to the habitat 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

[[Page 64214]]

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 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, alpine 
streams (Baumann and Stewart 1980, p. 658; Montana Natural Heritage 
Program 2010a) originating from meltwater sources, including glaciers 
and small icefields, perennial and seasonal snowpack, alpine springs, 
and glacial lake outlets (Hauer et al. 2007, p. 107; Giersch et al. 
2017, p. 2584). These streams are believed to be fishless, due to their 
high gradient. Meltwater lednian stoneflies are known from alpine 
streams where modeled maximum water temperatures do not exceed 10 
degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (50 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) (Giersch et 
al. 2017, p. 2584), 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 et al. 2017, p. 2579).
Western Glacier Stonefly
    Western glacier stoneflies are found in high-elevation, alpine 
streams closely linked to the same meltwater sources as the meltwater 
lednian stonefly (Giersch et al. 2017; p. 2584). 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 13.3 [deg]C 
(55.9 [deg]F) (Giersch et al. 2017, p. 2584). 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 as 
described above (Giersch et al. 2017, p. 2579).

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or 
``threatened species.'' The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a 
species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range,'' and a ``threatened species'' as a 
species that is ``likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' The Act requires that we determine whether a species meets the 
definition of ``endangered species'' or ``threatened species'' because 
of any of the following factors: (A) The present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence.
    Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 
framework within which we evaluate the foreseeable future on a case-by-
case basis. The term foreseeable future extends only so far into the 
future as the Services can reasonably determine that both the future 
threats and the species' responses to those threats are likely. The 
foreseeable future extends only so far as the predictions about the 
future are reliable. ``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means 
sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the 
prediction. Analysis of the foreseeable future uses the best scientific 
and commercial data available and should consider the timeframes 
applicable to the relevant threats and to the species' likely responses 
to those threats in view of its life-history characteristics.
    Below is a summary of biological status and threats for listing 
factors A and E, including new information and citations provided to us 
during the peer review and public comment period. See the proposed 
listing rule for information on biological status and threats for 
listing factors B, C, and D (81 FR 68379, October 4, 2016; pp. 68390-
68392). We did not make substantive changes to listing factors B, C, 
and D between the proposed and final listing rules because we have 
received no new substantive information relevant to our analysis of 
those factors. Also, see the proposed listing rule for discussion of 
synergistic effects and the Factor E discussion in this rule, which 
addresses comments from a peer reviewer with regard to synergistic 
effects (81 FR 68379, October 4, 2016, pp. 68392-68393).
    For listing factors A and E, we made substantive changes between 
the proposed and final listing rules. As described further below in 
Summary of Changes from the Proposed Rule, in the proposed listing 
rule, we identified populations of meltwater lednian stonefly and 
western glacier stonefly based on watershed boundaries. However, 
multiple peer reviewers observed the need for empirical evidence to 
support that assessment. Therefore, we have updated our explanation to 
describe the number of streams occupied by both meltwater lednian 
stonefly and western glacier stonefly in our Factors A and E analyses. 
In addition, we received updated information on the distribution of 
meltwater lednian stonefly and western glacier stonefly after the 
proposed rule was published. Meltwater lednian stonefly are now known 
from southwest Alberta, Canada (Giersch et al. 2017; p. 2582). In 
addition, new information documented and genetically confirmed the 
presence of western glacier stonefly approximately 500 km (311 mi) 
farther south than previously known (Giersch et al. 2016, p. 28; 
Hotaling et al. 2017, entire). These southern populations of western 
glacier stonefly were in the Absaroka-Beartooth wilderness in southern 
Montana and in Grand Teton National Park in northwestern Wyoming. As a 
result of this new information, we have now identified a total of 16 
streams occupied by western glacier stonefly. Here, we analyze how both 
species are affected by threats under Factors A and E in all of their 
currently known locations.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
    Meltwater lednian stoneflies occupy remote, high-elevation alpine 
habitats in GNP and several proximate watersheds. Western glacier 
stoneflies occupy similar habitats in GNP, GTNP, and the Absaroka/
Beartooth Wilderness. 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

[[Page 64215]]

under Factor A focuses on the expected effects of climate change on 
meltwater lednian and western glacier stonefly habitats.
Climate Change
    See the proposed listing rule for general background information on 
global climate change (81 FR 68379, October 4, 2016).
Uncertainty in Climate Projections
    Any model (representation of something) carries with it some level 
of uncertainty. Consequently, there is uncertainty in climate 
projections and related impacts across and within different regions of 
the world (e.g., Glick et al. 2011, pp. 68-73; Deser et al. 2012, 
entire; International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2014, pp. 12, 14). 
This uncertainty can come from multiple sources, including type, 
amount, and quality of evidence, changing likelihoods of diverse 
outcomes, ambiguously defined concepts or terminology, or human 
behavior (IPCC 2014, pp. 37, 56, 58, 128). Methods developed to convey 
uncertainty in climate projections include quantifying uncertainty 
(IPCC 2014, p. 2) or analyzing for trends among climate projections 
(IPCC 2014, pp. 8, 10). Also, uncertainty in climate projections can be 
reduced by using more regionalized data to produce higher resolution, 
more accurate climate projections (Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58-61). This 
uncertainty was considered in this determination. We note that despite 
the inherent uncertainties associated with climate models/projections, 
empirical data are used to develop climate models. These models and 
their associated projections often constitute the best available 
science, in the absence of other relevant information.
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 and 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). 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). 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 final rule, 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 and 
emissions scenarios provide consistent projections 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, rock glaciers and small 
icefields, perennial and seasonal snowpack, alpine springs, and glacial 
lake outlets (Hauer et al. 2007, p. 107; Giersch et al. 2017, p. 2584). 
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 as a result of climate change, 
followed by the projected effects to stonefly habitat from altered 
stream flows and water temperatures.
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 glacier 
persistence in GNP's Blackfoot-Jackson basin using two climate 
scenarios based on empirical air temperature and glacier melt rate 
data: (1) Doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide by 2030 
(CO2) and (2) linear temperature-extrapolation. Under the 
CO2 scenario, regional air temperatures were projected to 
increase 3.3 [deg]C by 2100, and glaciers were projected to completely 
melt in GNP by 2030, with projected increases in winter precipitation 
not expected to buffer glacial shrinking (Hall and Fagre 2003, pp. 137-
138). Under the linear temperature-extrapolation scenario, regional air 
temperatures were projected to increase 0.45 [deg]C by 2100, and 
glaciers were projected to completely melt in GNP by 2277 (Hall and 
Fagre 2003, pp. 137-138).
    We determined that the CO2 scenario was likely to better 
represent future air temperature conditions and glacier persistence in 
GNP for multiple reasons. First, the projected future air temperature 
increase of 0.45 [deg]C (by 2100) under the linear temperature-
extrapolation scenario is now projected to occur by 2035 (IPCC 2014, p. 
10)--65 years sooner than projected under the linear temperature-
extrapolation. This new projection is based on 11 additional years of 
climate data that were not available in 2003. Thus, the linear 
temperature-extrapolation model is overly conservative. Second, while 
both future air temperature projections (i.e., 3.3 [deg]C and 0.45 
[deg]C) from Hall and Fagre 2003 are bracketed by newer projections of 
air temperature rise from varying climate scenarios in IPCC 2014 (p. 
10), the mean annual air temperature for GNP and the surrounding region 
is increasing at 1.8 times the global rate (USGS 2010, p. 1). This 
means that the CO2 scenario with its higher future air 
temperature projection (i.e., 3.3 [deg]C) is more likely to represent 
the likely air temperature change in the GNP area. Indeed, the range of 
projected future air temperatures in three of the four global climate 
scenarios used in IPCC 2014 (i.e., Representative Concentration 
Pathways (RCPs) 4.5, 6.0, and 8.5; IPCC 2014, p. 8) include 3.3 [deg]C, 
after taking into account the regional increase of projected air 
temperatures of 1.8 times the global rate.
    Conversely, even the most conservative (i.e., lowest emissions) 
global climate scenario used in IPCC 2014 (RCP 2.6) does not encompass 
the air temperature projection (0.45 [deg]C) from the linear 
temperature-extrapolation model, after taking into account the regional 
increase of projected air temperatures of 1.8 times the global rate. 
Third, recent observations of glacier melting rates indicate faster 
melt than projected by the CO2 scenario (Muhlfeld et al. 
2011, p. 339). Intuitively, this indicates the CO2 scenario 
would be expected to better represent future air temperatures and 
glacier persistence, relative to the more conservative linear 
temperature-extrapolation model. For these reasons, we expect the 
CO2 scenario to better represent future air temperature 
increase and glacier persistence in GNP than the linear temperature-
extrapolation scenario.
    A more recent analysis of Sperry Glacier in GNP estimates this 
particular glacier (1 of 25 glaciers remaining from the historical 150 
glaciers larger than 25 acres) 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 the remaining glaciers in GNP. Thus, we largely rely

[[Page 64216]]

on Hall and Fagre's (2003) projections under the CO2 
scenario in our analysis, supplemented with more recent glacier-
specific studies where appropriate (e.g., Brown et al. 2010, entire).
    The longevity of glaciers and snowfields in GTNP and the Absaroka/
Beartooth Wilderness is unknown. While most of these glaciers occur at 
higher elevations than those in GNP, multiple factors other than 
elevation influence glacial retreat rates, including size, latitude, 
and aspect (Janke 2007, p. 80). Middle Teton glacier in GTNP is 
projected to persist through the year 2100 (Tootle et al. 2010, p. 29); 
however, this projection is based on the assumption that future glacial 
retreat rates will be the same as those observed during the period of 
study (i.e., 1967-2006; Tootle et al. 2010, p. 29). This scenario 
appears unlikely because glacier size is an important variable in 
glacier retreat rates (Janke 2007, p. 80), whereby the rate of glacial 
melting increases as glaciers shrink. Thus, the longevity of glaciers 
and snowfields in GTNP and the Absaroka/Beartooth Wilderness is unclear 
at this time.
    Petersen Glacier in GTNP is a rock glacier that provides meltwater 
to one stream occupied by the western glacier stonefly. A rock glacier 
is a glacier that is covered by rocks and other debris. The size of 
Petersen Glacier is unknown because it is mostly covered in rocks. 
However, rock glaciers melt more slowly than alpine glaciers because of 
the insulating properties of the debris covering the main glacial ice 
mass (Janke 2007, p. 80; Pelto 2000, pp. 39-40; Brenning 2005, p. 237). 
Thus, cold-water habitats originating from rock glaciers may be present 
longer into the future than from other meltwater sources.
Loss of Other Meltwater Sources
    Meltwater in meltwater lednian stonefly and western glacier 
stonefly habitat is supplied by glaciers and rock glaciers, as well as 
by four other sources: (1) Seasonal snow, (2) perennial snow, (3) 
alpine springs, and (4) ice masses (Giersch et al. 2017, p. 2584). 
Seasonal snow is that which accumulates and melts seasonally, with the 
amount varying year to year depending on annual weather events. 
Perennial 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 be affected by the changing 
climate at different time intervals. 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.
    We expect that effects to meltwater lednian stonefly habitats south 
of GNP may occur sooner in time than those discussed for GNP. The 
timing of snowfield and ice mass disappearance is expected to be before 
the majority of glacial melting (i.e., 2030), because perennial 
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. Our analysis primarily focuses on effects to 
the meltwater lednian stonefly and the western glacier stonefly and 
their habitat within GNP because more data are available for those 
areas.
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; Leppi et al. 2012, p. 1105; Clark 
et al. 2015, p. 14). 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 
stoneflies is projected to decline by 81 percent in GNP, compared to 
the present amount of habitat (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 the aquatic nymphs need perennial 
flowing water to breathe and to mature before reproducing (Stewart and 
Harper 1996, p. 217). Given that both stonefly species are believed to 
be poor dispersers (similar to other Plecopterans; Baumann and Gaufin 
1971, p. 277), 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 occupied streams.
    Currently, 107 streams (of 113) occupied by meltwater lednian 
stonefly and 12 streams (of 16) occupied by western glacier stonefly 
are supplied by seasonal snowpack, perennial snowpack, ice masses, and 
some glaciers (Giersch et al. 2017, p. 2584; Giersch 2017, pers. 
comm.). Meltwater from these sources is expected to become inconsistent 
by 2030 (Hall and Fagre 2003, p. 137). 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 as a result. By 2030, we 
also anticipate the remaining occupied habitats to be further isolated 
relative to current conditions.
    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; Clark 
et al. 2015, p. 14). This expected pattern of decline is consistent 
with observed patterns of low flow from alpine springs in the Rocky 
Mountains 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, drying of

[[Page 64217]]

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 projected to range 
from relatively unchanged to a small (~10 percent) annual increase 
(IPCC 2014, pp. 20-21).
    Only 6 streams (out of 113) occupied by meltwater lednian stonefly 
and 4 streams (out of 16) occupied by western glacier stonefly 
originate from alpine springs. Thus, despite the potential for some 
alpine springs to provide refugia for both stonefly species 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 projected 
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 occurrence each of the meltwater lednian stonefly and the 
western glacier stonefly occupy a glacial lake outlet (Upper Grinnell 
Lake; Giersch et al. 2015, p. 58; Giersch et al. 2017, p. 2588). Thus, 
despite the fact that this habitat type may continue to provide refugia 
for both stonefly species even after the complete loss of glaciers, a 
small percentage of each species may benefit from these potential 
refugia. As such, we conclude that habitat degradation in the form of 
reduced streamflows due to the effects of climate change will impact 95 
percent of streams occupied by meltwater lednian stonefly and 75 
percent of streams occupied by western glacier stonefly populations 
within the foreseeable 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; Clark et al. 2015, p. 14). 
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, 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 stoneflies and western glacier stoneflies will 
have no physical habitat left to which to migrate upstream. The likely 
result of this scenario would be the extirpation of stoneflies from 
these habitats. Other indirect effects of warming water temperatures on 
both stonefly species could include 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 streams occupied by meltwater lednian stonefly and 
one stream occupied by western glacier stonefly are habitats that may 
warm significantly by 2030, due to the projected complete melting of 
glaciers and snow and ice fields. Increasing water temperatures may be 
related to recent distributional declines of western glacier stoneflies 
within GNP (Giersch et al. 2015, p. 61).
    Alpine springs--Although meltwater contributions to alpine springs 
are expected to decline as glaciers and perennial 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 six streams occupied by the meltwater lednian stonefly (5 
percent of total known occupied streams) and four streams occupied by 
the western glacier stonefly (25 percent of total known occupied 
streams) originate 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, a small percentage of each species may 
benefit from these 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 the 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 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 for the reasons described previously.
    One stream occupied by meltwater lednian stonefly and the western 
glacier stonefly is a glacial lake outlet (Upper Grinnell Lake; Giersch 
et al. 2015, p. 58; Giersch et al. 2017). 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 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.
Maintenance and Improvement of National Park Infrastructure
    Glacier National Park and Grand Teton National Park are managed to 
protect natural and cultural resources, and the landscapes within these 
parks are relatively pristine. However, both National Parks 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

[[Page 64218]]

improvement of these facilities and structures could conceivably lead 
to disturbance of the natural environment.
    In the proposed listing rule, we mentioned we were aware of one 
water diversion on Logan Creek in GNP that was scheduled to be 
retrofitted by the NPS. Logan Creek is occupied by meltwater lednian 
stoneflies. Since publication of the proposed listing rule, the water 
diversion retrofit project has been redesigned to avoid any dewatering 
or instream work in the proposed section of Logan Creek (Aceituno 2017, 
pers. comm.). Thus, this project is no longer expected to impact 
meltwater lednian stoneflies, and we no longer incorporate this project 
into our analysis.
    We do not have any information indicating that maintenance and 
improvement of other GNP or GTNP 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 National Park facilities 
and structures, and the resulting improved access into the backcountry 
for recreationists, are unlikely to affect meltwater lednian or western 
glacier stonefly or their habitat.
National Park Visitor Impacts
    In 2015, GNP hosted 2.3 million visitors (NPS 2015, entire) and, in 
2016, GTNP hosted 4.8 million visitors (NPS 2016, entire). A few of the 
recent collection sites for the meltwater lednian stonefly (e.g., Logan 
and Reynolds Creeks in GNP) are more accessible to the public or 
adjacent to popular hiking trails in GNP and GTNP. Theoretically, human 
activity (wading) in streams by anglers or hikers could disturb 
meltwater lednian stonefly habitat. However, we consider it unlikely 
that many National Park 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 in GNP 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 in GNP are currently closed to public use and entry to protect 
resident vegetation (NPS 2010, pp. J5, J24). Collection sites of 
western glacier stoneflies in GTNP are also relatively inaccessible to 
most visitors. We conclude that impacts to the meltwater lednian and 
western glacier stonefly and their habitat from National Park visitors 
are not likely to occur.
Wilderness Area Visitor Impacts
    Three streams occupied by meltwater lednian stonefly are located in 
wilderness areas adjacent to GNP, and six streams occupied by the 
western glacier stonefly are located in the Absaroka/Beartooth 
Wilderness. Visitor activities in wilderness areas are similar to those 
described for National Parks, namely hiking and angling. No 
recreational hiking trails are present near the two streams occupied by 
meltwater lednian stonefly in the Bob Marshall Wilderness and Great 
Bear Wilderness (USFS 2015, p. 1) or near the stream occurring in the 
Mission Mountain Tribal Wilderness. There are several hiking trails 
near streams occupied by the western glacier stonefly in the Absaroka/
Beartooth Wilderness. Similar to the National Parks, stream reaches 
that harbor the meltwater lednian stonefly and the western glacier 
stonefly in these wilderness areas are likely fishless due to the high 
gradient, so wade anglers are not expected to disturb stonefly habitat. 
Given the remote nature of and limited access to meltwater stonefly and 
western glacier stonefly habitat in wilderness areas, we do not 
anticipate any current or future threats to meltwater lednian 
stoneflies or western glacier stoneflies or their respective habitats 
from visitor use.
Summary of Factor A
    In summary, we expect climate change impacts 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 in GNP 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. In 
GTNP and the Absaroka/Beartooth Wilderness, we expect a similar pattern 
of meltwater stream warming and potential drying. Projected habitat 
changes are based on observed patterns of flow and water temperature in 
similar watersheds elsewhere where glaciers have already melted.
    We have observed a declining trend in western glacier stonefly 
distribution over the last 50 years, as air temperatures have warmed in 
GNP. The addition of newly reported populations of western glacier 
stonefly provides increased redundancy for the species across its 
range, bringing the total number of known occupied streams to 13 (up 
from 4 occupied streams at the time of publishing of the proposed 
rule). However, the resiliency of all known populations remains low 
because western glacier stonefly inhabit the most upstream reaches of 
their meltwater habitats and cannot disperse further upstream if water 
temperatures warm beyond their thermal tolerances. 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 are significantly affecting 
both the meltwater lednian and western glacier stoneflies now and into 
the 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 on either the meltwater 
lednian stonefly or the western glacier stonefly are low.
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 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

[[Page 64219]]

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, 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. A thorough analysis of existing regulatory 
mechanisms was carried out and described in the proposed listing rule 
(81 FR 68379, October 4, 2016). No local, State, or Federal laws 
specifically protect the meltwater lednian or western glacier stonefly.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued 
Existence
Small Population Size/Genetic Diversity
    Small population size can increase risk of extinction, if genetic 
diversity is not maintained (Fausch et al. 2006, p. 23; Allendorf et 
al. 1997, entire). Genetic diversity in the meltwater lednian stonefly 
is declining and lower than that of two other stonefly species (Jordan 
et al. 2017, p. 9). Genetic diversity of western glacier stonefly is 
lower than other species in the Zapada genus sampled in GNP (Giersch et 
al. 2015, p. 63). It is presumed that low genetic diversity in 
meltwater lednian stoneflies and western glacier stoneflies is linked 
to small effective population sizes and population isolation (Jordan et 
al. 2017, p. 9; Giersch et al. 2015, p. 63). Population isolation can 
limit or preclude genetic exchange between populations (Hotaling et al. 
2017, p. 9; Fausch et al. 2006, p. 8). However, it is unclear how far 
into the future population-level effects from loss of genetic diversity 
may appear in the meltwater lednian and western glacier stonefly. Loss 
of genetic diversity is typically not an immediate threat even in 
isolated populations with small effective population sizes (Palstra and 
Ruzzante 2008, p. 3441), but rather is a symptom of deterministic 
processes acting on the population (Jamieson and Allendorf 2012, p. 
580). In other words, loss of genetic diversity due to small effective 
population size typically does not drive species to extinction 
(Jamieson and Allendorf 2012, entire); other processes, such as habitat 
degradation, have a more immediate and greater impact on species 
persistence (Jamieson and Allendorf 2012). We acknowledge that loss of 
genetic diversity can occur in small populations; however, in this 
case, it appears that projected effects to habitat are the primary 
threat to both stonefly species, not a loss of genetic diversity that 
may take many years to manifest.
Restricted Range and Stochastic (Random) Events
    Narrow endemic species 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 distributed species. A restricted range and 
stochastic events may have greater impacts on western glacier stonefly, 
compared to meltwater lednian stonefly, because of considerably fewer 
populations. However, meltwater lednian stonefly is a narrow endemic as 
well and may be at higher risk of random events when compared to a more 
widely distributed species. The risk to meltwater lednian and western 
glacier stoneflies from fire appears low, given that most alpine 
environments within the species' habitats 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 occurrences.
    The risk to the meltwater lednian stonefly from drought appears 
moderate in the near term because 59 of 113 occupied streams are 
supplied by seasonal or perennial snowmelt, which would be expected to 
decline first during drought. For the western glacier stonefly, the 
threat of drought is also moderate because 6 of 16 occupied streams are 
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 projected) 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 
presumed 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 future.
Summary of Factor E
    The effect of small population size and loss of genetic diversity 
does not appear to be having immediate impacts on the meltwater lednian 
stonefly or the western glacier stonefly, given the high densities of 
individuals within many streams and that potential effects from loss of 
genetic diversity would likely occur beyond the timeframe in which 
habitat-related threats are expected to occur. However, the restricted 
range of the meltwater lednian and western glacier stonefly make both 
species vulnerable to the stochastic threat of

[[Page 64220]]

drought, which is expected to negatively affect both species within the 
future.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    Based on information received during the peer review process and 
public comment periods, we made the following substantive changes 
(listed below) to the Background portion of the preamble to this final 
listing rule. In addition, we have added species-specific provisions to 
50 CFR 17.47 as a result of new rulemaking actions that pertain to the 
listing of threatened species; these rulemaking actions and the 
subsequent additions to this rule are described in section II of the 
preamble (see below), and the regulatory provisions are set forth at 
the end of this document in the rule language. The prohibitions 
provided under this 4(d) rule do not differ from those proposed for the 
species; however, the manner in which they are implemented (via a 
species-specific rule rather than referring to the ``blanket'' rule at 
50 CFR 17.31) has changed.
    1. We incorporated new distribution information for the meltwater 
lednian stonefly and western glacier stonefly. This information became 
available to us after the proposed listing rule was published and 
included a small range expansion for the meltwater lednian stonefly 
(southwestern Alberta, Canada) and large range expansion for western 
glacier stonefly of about 500 km (311 mi) south from their previously 
known range, to now include multiple streams in GTNP in Wyoming and the 
Absaroka/Beartooth Wilderness in Montana. This new information updated 
the number of known streams occupied by western glacier stonefly from 4 
to 16. This information was incorporated into the analyses under 
Factors A and E.
    2. We incorporated genetics information from a new study by 
Hotaling et al. 2017. This new study confirmed through genetic analysis 
that the western glacier stonefly was present in multiple streams in 
GTNP in Wyoming and the Absaroka/Beartooth Wilderness in Montana. This 
information represents the most current assessment of genetic 
information for western glacier and meltwater lednian stonefly and was 
not available when the proposed listing rule was published. This new 
information was incorporated into the analyses under Factors A and E.
    3. We incorporated information on how rock glaciers might respond 
to climate change under Factor A. Rock glaciers are debris-covered 
glaciers that are expected to melt more slowly than normal glaciers.
    4. We incorporated information on site-specific differences in 
geology, glacial persistence, and stonefly density between GNP and 
GTNP. This information clarified differences in habitat and stonefly 
density across the range of the western glacier stonefly and was 
incorporated into our analysis under Factor A.
    5. We updated literature citations throughout Factors A and E. We 
updated several pieces of literature that were originally cited as 
unpublished reports, but were subsequently published in scientific 
journals after the proposed listing rule published in the Federal 
Register. We incorporated one study on meltwater lednian stonefly 
genetics that was not cited in the proposed rule (Jordan et al. 2017) 
in Factor E. We also incorporated two additional studies (Clark et al. 
2015; Leppi et al. 2012) on the projected effects of climate change on 
stream runoff in Factor A.
    6. We clarified minor inaccuracies related to stonefly distribution 
and dispersal capability. This included clarifying areas of 
uncertainty.
    7. We incorporated potential effects of population isolation into 
our analysis of Factor E. We added a paragraph discussing the potential 
effects of population isolation and reduced genetic diversity on 
stonefly viability.
    8. We changed the terminology used to describe the distribution of 
the two species. We used the term ``populations'' in the proposed 
listing rule to reference groups of stoneflies in certain areas that we 
believed likely constituted an interbreeding population. However, there 
is no empirical evidence to support the use of the term ``population,'' 
so we now refer instead to the number of distinct streams that are 
occupied by both stonefly species when discussing their distribution 
and current and future status. The terminology change was incorporated 
into our analyses under Factors A and E.
    9. We reevaluated whether critical habitat for both stonefly 
species is prudent. Our October 4, 2016, proposed rule included a 
determination that critical habitat for the meltwater lednian stonefly 
and western glacier stonefly was prudent but not determinable at that 
time (81 FR 68379). Since that time, the Service finalized regulations 
related to listing species and designating critical habitat (84 FR 
45020, August 27, 2019), which revised the regulations that implement 
section 4 of the Act and clarify circumstances in which critical 
habitat may be found not prudent. Regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) 
provide the circumstances when critical habitat may be not prudent, and 
we have determined that a designation of critical habitat for these 
species is not prudent, as discussed further below.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published on October 4, 2016 (81 FR 68379), we 
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the 
proposal by December 5, 2016. We also contacted appropriate Federal and 
State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other 
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. 
Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the 
Kalispell InterLake, Great Falls Tribune, Bozeman Chronicle, Billings 
Gazette, and Jackson Hole News and Guide. On October 31, 2017, we 
reopened the comment period on our proposed listing rule to allow the 
public to comment on new information regarding the known distribution 
of western glacier stonefly (82 FR 50360). We did not receive any 
requests for a public hearing. All substantive information provided 
during both comment periods has either been incorporated directly into 
this final determination or addressed below.
Peer Reviewer Comments
    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from seven knowledgeable 
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with 
stoneflies and their habitat, biological needs, and threats. We 
received responses from three of the peer reviewers.
    We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for 
substantive issues and new information regarding the listing of 
meltwater lednian stonefly and western glacier stonefly. The peer 
reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions and 
provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to 
improve the final rule. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the 
following summary and incorporated into this final rule as appropriate.
    (1) Comment: Several peer reviewers noted that new genetics 
information (i.e., Hotaling et al. 2017) for meltwater lednian and 
western glacier stoneflies was now available that was not available 
when the proposed listing rule was published.
    Our Response: We are aware of the genetic analysis by Hotaling et 
al., and we have fully incorporated their findings and conclusions into 
this final

[[Page 64221]]

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

[[Page 64222]]

observations of stoneflies. Therefore, we did not include information 
from the provided study in our assessment of either stonefly species. 
Rather, we considered studies specific to meltwater lednian stonefly, 
western glacier stonefly, and other more closely related species in 
similar geographic areas to be the best available scientific 
information on which to base our assessment.
    (12) Comment: Two joint commenters expressed support for listing 
both stonefly species and provided multiple scientific journal articles 
for the Service to assess.
    Our Response: Of the 10 scientific articles provided, 3 (Jordan et 
al. 2016; Giersch et al. 2016; Treanor et al. 2013) were already 
included and cited in the proposed listing rule. Three of the other 
articles provided (Hotaling et al. 2017a; Clark et al. 2015; Leppi et 
al. 2012) were added to the final listing rule in our Factors A and E 
analyses. The remaining four articles (Hotaling et al. 2017b; Wuebbles 
et al. 2017; Chang and Hansen 2015; Al-Chokhacky et al. 2013) were 
broad in nature (large-scale climate information relevant to other 
ecosystems and species) and were not included in the final listing rule 
because we had finer scale information more relevant to western glacier 
stonefly and meltwater lednian stonefly and their habitats.

Determination of Western Glacier Stonefly and Meltwater Lednian 
Stonefly Status

Status Throughout All of Its Range
    We find that the meltwater lednian stonefly is likely to become 
endangered throughout all 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, based on empirical glacier melting rates. Meltwater 
stonefly habitat is likely to be impacted by several factors that are 
expected to reduce the overall viability of the species to the point 
that it meets the definition of a threatened species.
    We also find that the western glacier stonefly is likely to become 
endangered throughout all 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, based on empirical 
glacier melting rates. In addition, decreasing distribution of western 
glacier stonefly has been documented in GNP. Western glacier stonefly 
habitat is likely to be impacted by several factors that are expected 
to reduce the overall viability of the species to the point that it 
meets the definition of a threatened species. Therefore, on the basis 
of the best available scientific and commercial information, we are 
listing the meltwater lednian stonefly and western glacier stonefly as 
threatened species 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 as 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 projected melting of most glaciers in GNP by 2030. 
Densities and estimated abundance of the meltwater lednian stonefly are 
currently relatively high. In addition, some habitats that are supplied 
by seasonal snowpack continue to be occupied by meltwater lednian 
stonefly. 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.
    We also find that an endangered species status is not appropriate 
for the western glacier stonefly because the species is not currently 
in danger of extinction as 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 projected melting of most glaciers in GNP by 2030. 
Although only 16 streams are known to be occupied by western glacier 
stonefly, densities and estimated abundance of the western glacier 
stonefly are currently relatively high in many streams. 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.
    After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we 
have determined that 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). Most 
glaciers in GNP are expected to melt by 2030, based on past empirical 
melting rates and projections of future air temperature increases in a 
region that is warming at 1.8 times the global rate. 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). 
Drought is also expected to affect habitat occupied by meltwater 
lednian stonefly and western glacier stonefly that is supplied by those 
meltwater sources (Factor E). These threats and responses are 
reasonably foreseeable because some are already evident and we have no 
indication that the rate of climate change will slow within the 
foreseeable future. As a result of this anticipated loss of habitat, 
only a few refugia streams and springs are expected to persist in the 
longer term. Recolonization of habitats where known occurrences of 
either species are extirpated is not anticipated, given the presumed 
poor dispersal abilities of both species. Thus, after assessing the 
best available information, we conclude that meltwater lednian stonefly 
and the western glacier stonefly are not currently in danger of 
extinction, but are likely to become in danger of extinction within the 
foreseeable future throughout all of their ranges.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. Where the best available information allows the Services to 
determine a status for the species rangewide, that determination should 
be given conclusive weight because a rangewide determination of status 
more accurately reflects the species' degree of imperilment and better 
promotes the purposes of the Act. Under this reading, we should first 
consider whether the species warrants listing ``throughout all'' of its 
range and proceed to conduct a ``significant portion of its range'' 
analysis if, and only if, a species does not qualify for listing as 
either an endangered or a threatened species according to the 
``throughout all'' language. We note that the court in Desert Survivors 
v. Department of the Interior, No. 16-cv-01165-JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 
(N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), did not address this issue, and our 
conclusion is therefore

[[Page 64223]]

consistent with the opinion in that case. Because we have determined 
that the meltwater lednian stonefly and the western glacier stonefly 
are likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable 
future throughout all of their ranges, we find it unnecessary to 
proceed to an evaluation of potentially significant portions of the 
range.
Determination of Status
    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that the meltwater lednian stonefly and the 
western glacier stonefly meet the definition of threatened species. 
Therefore, we are listing the meltwater lednian stonefly and the 
western glacier stonefly as threatened species in accordance with 
sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

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 requires that recovery actions be carried out for all 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 requires 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 
within 30 days of when the 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 identifies site-
specific management actions that set a trigger for review of the five 
factors that control whether a species remains endangered or may be 
downlisted or delisted, 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 website (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, Tribal, 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.
    Following publication of this final listing rule, 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(s) of Montana 
and Wyoming will be eligible for Federal funds to implement management 
actions that promote the protection or recovery of the meltwater 
lednian stonefly and/or western glacier stonefly. Information on our 
grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found 
at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
    Please let us know if you are interested in participating in 
recovery efforts for the meltwater lednian stonefly and western glacier 
stonefly. 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 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)(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 any endangered or threatened 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 and any other landscape-altering 
activities on Federal lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service 
(Flathead and Custer/Gallatin National Forests) and NPS (GNP, GTNP); 
issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act permits by the Army Corps of 
Engineers; and construction and maintenance of roads or highways by the 
Federal Highway Administration.
    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 listing on 
proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the species being 
listed. The discussion below about the 4(d) rule complies with our 
policy.

II. Final Rule Issued Under Section 4(d) of the Act

Background

    Section 4(d) of the Act states that the ``Secretary shall issue 
such regulations as he deems necessary and advisable to provide for the 
conservation'' of species listed as threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court 
has noted that very similar statutory language demonstrates a large 
degree of deference to the agency (see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 
(1988)). Conservation is defined in the Act to mean ``the use of all 
methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered 
species or threatened

[[Page 64224]]

species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to [the 
Act] are no longer necessary.'' Additionally, section 4(d) of the Act 
states that the Secretary ``may by regulation prohibit with respect to 
any threatened species any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1), in the 
case of fish or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the case of plants.'' 
Thus, regulations promulgated under section 4(d) of the Act provide the 
Secretary with wide latitude of discretion to select appropriate 
provisions tailored to the specific conservation needs of the 
threatened species. The statute grants particularly broad discretion to 
the Service when adopting the prohibitions under section 9.
    The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion 
under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the 
conservation of a species. For example, courts have approved rules 
developed under section 4(d) that include a taking prohibition for 
threatened wildlife, or include a limited taking prohibition (see Alsea 
Valley Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 
2007); Washington Environmental Council v. National Marine Fisheries 
Service, 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D. Wash. 2002)). Courts have 
also approved 4(d) rules that do not address all of the threats a 
species faces (see State of Louisiana v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 
1988)). As noted in the legislative history when the Act was initially 
enacted, ``once an animal is on the threatened list, the Secretary has 
an almost infinite number of options available to him with regard to 
the permitted activities for those species. He may, for example, permit 
taking, but not importation of such species, or he may choose to forbid 
both taking and importation but allow the transportation of such 
species,'' (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973).
    In our proposed rule to list the meltwater lednian stonefly and the 
western glacier stonefly published on October 4, 2016 (81 FR 68379), we 
referenced a section of the regulation that provided threatened species 
with the same protections as endangered species also known as ``blanket 
rules'' (50 CFR 17.31). The Service has since published regulations on 
August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44753), amending 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.71 that 
state ``the blanket rules will no longer be in place, but the Secretary 
will still be required to make a decision about what regulations to put 
in place for the species.'' While the Service always had the ability to 
promulgate species-specific 4(d) rules for threatened species, moving 
forward we will promulgate a species-specific 4(d) rule for each 
species that we determine meets the definition of a threatened species. 
In the preamble to our 2016 proposed rule, we determined that a rule 
that included the prohibitions set forth in 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered 
species would be necessary and advisable for the conservation of the 
meltwater lednian stonefly and the western glacier stonefly. 
Consequently, we are promulgating a species-specific 4(d) rule that 
outlines the protections that were described in the 2016 proposed rule; 
see Provisions of the 4(d) Rule, below.
    Although the statute does not require the Service to make a 
``necessary and advisable'' finding with respect to the adoption of 
specific prohibitions under section 9, we find that this rule as a 
whole satisfies the requirement in section 4(d) of the Act to issue 
regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the 
conservation of the meltwater lednian stonefly and the western glacier 
stonefly. As discussed under Summary of Biological Status and Threats, 
the Service has concluded that the meltwater lednian stonefly and the 
western glacier stonefly are at risk of extinction within the 
foreseeable future due to loss of habitat due to glacier melting. The 
provisions of this species-specific 4(d) rule would promote 
conservation of the meltwater lednian stonefly and the western glacier 
stonefly by prohibiting take of both species. The provisions of this 
rule are one of many tools that the Service would use to promote the 
conservation of the meltwater lednian stonefly and the western glacier 
stonefly.

Provisions of the 4(d) Rule

    This 4(d) rule will provide for the conservation of the western 
glacier stonefly and meltwater lednian stonefly by prohibiting the 
following activities, except as otherwise authorized or permitted: 
Importing or exporting; take; possession and other acts with unlawfully 
taken specimens; delivering, receiving, transporting, or shipping in 
interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or 
selling or offering for sale in interstate or foreign commerce.
    As discussed under Summary of Biological Status and Threats 
(above), degraded habitats resulting from reduced flows and increased 
water temperatures (Factor A) are affecting the status of the meltwater 
lednian stonefly and the western glacier stonefly. Some activities 
could occur within the range of the species that have the potential to 
impact individual meltwater lednian stoneflies and the western glacier 
stoneflies, including: Trail construction and maintenance, road 
maintenance and repair, etc. Regulating these activities may help 
preserve the species' remaining populations, slow its rate of decline, 
and decrease synergistic, negative effects from other stressors.
    Under the Act, ``take'' means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any 
such conduct. Some of these provisions have been further defined in 
regulation at 50 CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or otherwise, by 
direct and indirect impacts, intentionally or incidentally. Regulating 
incidental and intentional take may reduce effects to individual 
stonefly life stages comprising the species' remaining populations.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities, 
including those described above, 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: Scientific purposes, to enhance propagation 
or survival, for economic hardship, for zoological exhibition, for 
educational purposes, for incidental taking, or for special purposes 
consistent with the purposes of the Act. There are also certain 
statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 
9 and 10 of the Act.
    The Service recognizes the special and unique relationship with our 
State natural resource agency partners in contributing to conservation 
of listed species. State agencies often possess scientific data and 
valuable expertise on the status and distribution of endangered, 
threatened, and candidate species of wildlife and plants. State 
agencies, because of their authorities and their close working 
relationships with local governments and landowners, are in a unique 
position to assist the Services in implementing all aspects of the Act. 
In this regard, section 6 of the Act provides that the Services shall 
cooperate to the maximum extent practicable with the States in carrying 
out programs authorized by the Act. Therefore, any qualified employee 
or agent of a State conservation agency that is a party to a 
cooperative agreement with the Service in accordance with section 6(c) 
of the Act, who is designated by his or her agency for such purposes, 
would be able to conduct activities designed to conserve western 
glacier stonefly and meltwater lednian stonefly that may result in 
otherwise prohibited take without additional authorization. The State 
of Montana

[[Page 64225]]

covers the meltwater lednian stonefly and the western glacier stonefly 
in Montana's State Wildlife Action Plan (Montana Fish, Wildlife, and 
Parks 2015, p. 439).
    Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule would change in any way the 
recovery planning provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the 
consultation requirements under section 7 of the Act, or the ability of 
the Service to enter into partnerships for the management and 
protection of the western glacier stonefly and meltwater lednian 
stonefly. However, interagency cooperation may be further streamlined 
through planned programmatic consultations for the species between 
Federal agencies and the Service.

III. Critical Habitat

Background

    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, 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.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7(a)(2) of the 
Act through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in 
consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or 
carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat 
does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, 
reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does 
not allow the government or public to access private lands. Such 
designation does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, 
or enhancement measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner 
requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may 
affect a listed species or critical habitat, the consultation 
requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even in the 
event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the obligation 
of the Federal action agency and the landowner is not to restore or 
recover the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent 
alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat.
    Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they 
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the 
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special 
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical 
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best 
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as 
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those 
physical or biological features that occur in specific areas, we focus 
on the specific features that are essential to support the life-history 
needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water 
characteristics, soil type, geological features, prey, vegetation, 
symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a single habitat 
characteristic, or a more complex combination of habitat 
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that 
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be 
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such 
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity.
    Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
we can designate critical habitat in 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. When designating critical habitat, the Secretary will first 
evaluate areas occupied by the species. The Secretary will only 
consider unoccupied areas to be essential where a critical habitat 
designation limited to geographical areas occupied by the species would 
be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. In addition, 
for an unoccupied area to be considered essential, the Secretary must 
determine that there is a reasonable certainty both that the area will 
contribute to the conservation of the species and that the area 
contains one or more of those physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on 
Information Standards under the Endangered Species Act (published in 
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information 
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), 
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, 
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions 
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our 
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of 
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources 
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical 
habitat.
Prudency Determination
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that the Secretary shall designate 
critical habitat at the time the species is determined to be an 
endangered species or threatened species to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the 
Secretary may, but is not required to, determine that a designation 
would not be prudent in the following circumstances:
    (i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and 
identification of critical habitat can be

[[Page 64226]]

expected to increase the degree of such threat to the species;
    (ii) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the 
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes 
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from 
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
    (iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no 
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species 
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States;
    (iv) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat; or
    (v) After analyzing the best scientific data available, the 
Secretary otherwise determines that designation of critical habitat 
would not be prudent.
    In our proposed rule to list the meltwater lednian stonefly and 
western glacier stonefly (81 FR 68379, October 4, 2016), we determined 
that critical habitat was prudent, but not determinable at that time. 
That determination regarding prudency was based on our regulations (50 
CFR 424.12(a)(1)) as they existed at that time in 2016. Since that 
time, the Service published regulations related to listing species and 
designating critical habitat (84 FR 45020, August 27, 2019), which 
revised the regulations that implement section 4 of the Act and clarify 
circumstances in which designation of critical habitat may be found to 
be not prudent, as explained above. Given the revisions to the critical 
habitat regulations, we have reevaluated our determination on whether 
designation of critical habitat for these species is prudent.
    As explained above, 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, rock glaciers, and small icefields, perennial and seasonal 
snowpack, alpine springs, and glacial lake outlets (Hauer et al. 2007, 
p. 107; Giersch et al. 2017, p. 2584). The sole threats to meltwater 
lednian stonefly and western glacier stonefly are the fragmentation and 
degradation of these habitats in the form of declining streamflows and 
increasing water temperatures resulting from climate change. Drought is 
also expected to affect habitat occupied by meltwater lednian stonefly 
and western glacier stonefly that is supplied by meltwater sources. 
Given the remote nature of these species' alpine habitats and extremely 
limited human activity in these areas (see Habitat and Factor A 
discussions above), we found no other habitat-based threats to either 
species. There are no management actions resulting from consultations 
under section 7(a)(2) of the Act that could address the impacts of 
climate change and drought on the meltwater sources that supply the 
habitats for these species (see the Service's May 14, 2008 Director's 
Memo on Expectations for Consultations on Actions that Would Emit 
Greenhouse Gases, which notes that section 7 consultation would not be 
required to address impacts of a facility's greenhouse gas emissions). 
For the meltwater lednian stonefly and western glacier stonefly, we 
find that threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes that 
cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from 
consultations on these species under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. 
Therefore, in accordance with 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1), we determine that 
critical habitat is not prudent for the meltwater lednian stonefly and 
western glacier stonefly.

Required Determinations

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 of our intent to 
conduct a status review on meltwater lednian stonefly, and solicited 
any information the Tribe may have regarding the sole population of 
meltwater lednian stonefly occurring in Tribal wilderness on 
Confederated Kootenai Salish Tribe land. The Tribe did not provide any 
information in response to our request.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov in 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 final rule are the staff members of the 
Montana Ecological Services Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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


0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by adding entries for ``Stonefly, meltwater 
lednian'' and ``Stonefly, western glacier'' to the List of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical order under ``Insects'' to read 
as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

[[Page 64227]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Listing citations
           Common name              Scientific name        Where listed          Status         and applicable
                                                                                                     rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Insects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Stonefly, meltwater lednian.....  Lednia tumana......  Wherever found.....  T                 84 FR [Insert
                                                                                               Federal Register
                                                                                               page where the
                                                                                               document begins];
                                                                                               11/21/2019; 50
                                                                                               CFR 17.47(c).\4d\
Stonefly, western glacier.......  Zapada glacier.....  Wherever found.....  T                 84 FR [Insert
                                                                                               Federal Register
                                                                                               page where the
                                                                                               document begins];
                                                                                               11/21/2019; 50
                                                                                               CFR 17.47(c).\4d\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. Amend Sec.  17.47 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  [thinsp]17.47  Special rules--insects.

* * * * *
    (c)Western glacier stonefly (Zapada glacier) and meltwater lednian 
stonefly (Lednia tumana)--(1) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions 
that apply to endangered wildlife also apply to western glacier 
stonefly and meltwater lednian stonefly except as provided under 
paragraph (c)(2) of this section and Sec. Sec.  17.4 and 17.5. It is 
unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United 
States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit, 
or cause to be committed, any of the following acts in regard to these 
species:
    (i) Import or export, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(b).
    (ii) Take, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(c)(1).
    (iii) Possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens, as 
set forth at Sec.  17.21(d)(1).
    (iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial 
activity, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(e).
    (v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(f).
    (2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In regard to this species, you 
may:
    (i) Conduct activities as authorized by a permit under Sec.  17.32.
    (ii) Take, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(c)(3) and (4) for endangered 
wildlife.
    (iii) Possess and engage in other acts, as set forth at Sec.  
17.21(d)(2) for endangered wildlife.
    (iv) In addition to any other provisions of this part, any employee 
or agent of the Service, of the National Marine Fisheries Service, or 
of a State conservation agency that is operating a conservation program 
pursuant to the terms of a cooperative agreement with the Service in 
accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, who is designated by that 
agency for such purposes, may, when acting in the course of official 
duties, take those threatened species of wildlife that are covered by 
an approved cooperative agreement to carry out conservation programs.

    Dated: November 13, 2019.
Margaret E. Everson,
Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising 
the Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-25195 Filed 11-20-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P