23256 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

3The 1997 revision of SAE Standard J587 permits 

license plates mounted at less than 1.2 meters above 

the ground to be angled upwards at 30 degrees and 

maintained the requirement for plates to be angled 

downward at no more than 15 degrees. 

4Available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/ 

0788.html. 5Motorcycle Industry Council Petition for 

Rulemaking, March 14, 2005 (Docket No. NHTSA– 

2005–20286–0009) 

should harmonize the license plate 

holder requirements with the most 

recent revision of SAE Standard J587 

and the requirements in European 

Union.3

In 1995, the agency stated that 

FMVSS No. 108 ‘‘incorporated SAE J587 

in its entirety, and there is no exclusion 

of paragraph 6.1.’’ The agency made this 

statement in an interpretation letter 

addressed to Volkswagen of America, 

Inc.4

Notwithstanding that interpretation, 

NHTSA takes note that there has been 

significant confusion among the 

relevant stakeholders as to whether or 

not the mounting provisions of SAE 

Standard J587 were incorporated into 

FMVSS No. 108 via Table III as 

referenced through S5.1.1. On the one 

hand, the Motorcycle Industry Council 

(MIC) petitioned this agency for 

rulemaking in March of 2005 (before the 

December 30, 2005 NPRM in this 

rulemaking) requesting that the agency 

update the incorporated SAE Standard 

J587 to allow for a 30 degree upward 

angle mounting position for license 

plates. The March 2005 petition seems 

to indicate that MIC believed that the 

license plate mounting provisions of 

SAE Standard J587 were incorporated 

into FMVSS No. 108 via S5.1.1 and 

Table III. On the other hand, the 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

commented on March 30, 2006 to the 

2005 NPRM and disputed the view that 

those provisions were ever incorporated 

into FMVSS No. 108. 

Conclusion 

Given the confusion over whether or 

not SAE Standard J587’s provisions on 

license plate holders were incorporated 

into the prior version of FMVSS No. 108 

and given the petition to initiate 

rulemaking premised on their 

incorporation and requesting their 

relaxation, the agency has decided to 

resolve this matter through rulemaking. 

Thus, through this document, the 

agency denies the aforementioned 

petitions for reconsideration as they 

relate to S6.6.3 (License Plate Holder) of 

the December 4, 2007 final rule. 

However, the agency is granting the 

petition from MIC requesting the agency 

to initiate rulemaking to examine the 

issue of license plate holders and their 

mounting requirements 5 in a separate 

document published in today’s Federal 

Register. Further, due to the confusion 

and special circumstances surrounding 

this rule, the agency announced in the 

aforementioned document in today’s 

Federal Register that it will not enforce 

the 15 degree license plate holder 

mounting requirement during the 

pendency of rulemaking on the issue of 

that requirement. 

The agency also notes that it is still 

considering the comments and requests 

relating to other issues in the petitions 

for reconsideration of the December 4, 

2007 final rule and will respond to them 

in a separate document. 

Issued on: April 21, 2011. 

Christopher J. Bonanti, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2011–10030 Filed 4–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2011–0019] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To List the Arapahoe Snowfly 

as Endangered or Threatened 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of petition finding and 

initiation of status review. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, announce a 90-day 

finding on a petition to list the 

Arapahoe snowfly (Capnia arapahoe) as 

endangered or threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act), and to designate critical 

habitat. Based on our review, we find 

that the petition presents substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that listing this species may 

be warranted. Therefore, with the 

publication of this notice, we are 

initiating a review of the status of the 

species to determine if listing the 

Arapahoe snowfly is warranted. To 

ensure that this status review is 

comprehensive, we are requesting 

scientific and commercial data and 

other information regarding this species. 

Based on the status review, we will 

issue a 12-month finding on the 

petition, which will address whether 

the petitioned action is warranted under 

the Act. 

DATES: To allow us adequate time to 

conduct this review, we request that we 

receive information on or before June 

27, 2011. The deadline for submitting an 

electronic comment using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES

section below) is 11:59 p.m. Eastern 

Time on this date. After June 27, 2011, 

you must submit information to the 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section below). 

Please note that we might not be able to 

address or incorporate information that 

we receive after the above-requested 

date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit 

information by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. In the box that 

reads ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID,’’ enter the 

Docket number for this finding, which 

is FWS–R6–ES–2011–0019. Check the 

box that reads ‘‘Open for Comment/ 

Submission,’’ and then click the Search 

button. You should then see an icon that 

reads ‘‘Submit a Comment.’’ Please 

ensure that you have found the correct 

rulemaking before submitting your 

comment. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: [Docket 

number FWS–R6–ES–2011–0019]; 

Division of Policy and Directives 

Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 

2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We 

will post all information we receive on 

http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Request for Information section 

below for more details). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Linner, Project Leader, by U.S. 

mail at Colorado Field Office, P.O. Box 

25486, Denver, CO 80225; by telephone 

at (303) 236–4773, or by facsimile at 

(303) 236–4005. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), please call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

(800) 877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Information 

When we make a finding that a 

petition presents substantial 

information indicating that listing a 

species may be warranted, we are 

required to promptly review the status 

of the species (status review). For the 

status review to be complete and based 

on the best available scientific and 

commercial information, we request 

information on the Arapahoe snowfly 

from governmental agencies, Native 

American Tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, and any other 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23257 

interested parties. We seek information 

on: 

(1) The species’ biology, range, and 

population trends, including: 

(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, 

breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range, 

including distribution patterns; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

and 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the species, its habitat, or 

both. 

(2) The factors that are the basis for 

making a listing determination for a 

species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) are: 

(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. 

If, after the status review, we 

determine that listing the Arapahoe 

snowfly is warranted, we will propose 

critical habitat (see definition in section 

3(5)(A) of the Act), under section 4 of 

the Act, to the maximum extent prudent 

and determinable at the time we 

propose to list the species. Therefore, 

within the geographical range currently 

occupied by the Arapahoe snowfly, we 

request data and information on: 

(1) What may constitute ‘‘physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species’’; 

(2) Where these features are currently 

found; and 

(3) Whether any of these features may 

require special management 

considerations or protection. 

In addition, we request data and 

information on ‘‘specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species’’ that are ‘‘essential to the 

conservation of the species.’’ Please 

provide specific comments and 

information as to what, if any, critical 

habitat you think we should propose for 

designation if the species is proposed 

for listing, and why such habitat meets 

the requirements of section 4 of the Act. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Submissions merely stating support 

for or opposition to the action under 

consideration without providing 

supporting information, although noted, 

will not be considered in making a 

determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the 

Act directs that determinations as to 

whether any species is an endangered or 

threatened species must be made ‘‘solely 

on the basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ 

You may submit your information 

concerning this status review by one of 

the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. If you submit information via 

http://www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the Web site. If you submit a 

hardcopy that includes personal 

identifying information, you may 

request at the top of your document that 

we withhold this personal identifying 

information from public review. 

However, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. We will post all 

hardcopy submissions on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Information and supporting 

documentation that we received and 

used in preparing this finding is 

available for you to review at http:// 

regulations.gov, or you may make an 

appointment during normal business 

hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Colorado Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires that we 

make a finding on whether a petition to 

list, delist, or reclassify a species 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

We are to base this finding on 

information provided in the petition, 

supporting information submitted with 

the petition, and information otherwise 

available in our files. To the maximum 

extent practicable, we are to make this 

finding within 90 days of our receipt of 

the petition and publish our notice of 

the finding promptly in the Federal 

Register. 

Our standard for substantial scientific 

or commercial information within the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with 

regard to a 90-day petition finding is 

‘‘that amount of information that would 

lead a reasonable person to believe that 

the measure proposed in the petition 

may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). 

If we find that substantial scientific or 

commercial information was presented, 

we are required to promptly conduct a 

species status review, which we 

subsequently summarize in our 12- 

month finding. 

Petition History 

On April 6, 2010, we received a 

petition of the same date from The 

Xerces Society for Invertebrate 

Conservation, Dr. Boris Kondratieff, 

Save the Poudre: Poudre Waterkeeper, 

Cache la Poudre River Foundation, 

WildEarth Guardians, and Center for 

Native Ecosystems, requesting that the 

Arapahoe snowfly be listed as 

endangered and that critical habitat be 

designated under the Act. The petition 

clearly identified itself as such and 

included the requisite identification 

information for the petitioners, as 

required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). In an 

April 13, 2010, letter to the petitioners, 

we responded that we reviewed the 

information presented in the petition 

and determined that issuing an 

emergency regulation temporarily 

listing the species under section 4(b)(7) 

of the Act was not warranted. We also 

stated that due to previously received 

petitions, court orders, other listing 

actions with statutory deadlines, and 

judicially approved settlement 

agreements that would take the 

remainder of Fiscal Year 2010 to 

complete, we anticipated responding to 

the petition in Fiscal Year 2011. On 

December 1, 2010, the petitioners filed 

a Notice of Intent to sue regarding our 

failure to complete a 90-day finding 

concerning their April 6, 2010, petition 

to list the Arapahoe snowfly. This 

finding addresses the petition. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On July 30, 2007, we received a 

formal petition dated July 24, 2007, 

from Forest Guardians (now WildEarth 

Guardians), requesting that the Service 

consider all full species in our 

Mountain-Prairie Region ranked as G1 

or G1G2 by the organization 

NatureServe (except those that are 

currently listed, proposed for listing, or 

candidates for listing), and list each 

species as either endangered or 

threatened. The Arapahoe snowfly was 

one of the 206 species included in the 

petition. On March 19, 2008, WildEarth 

Guardians filed a complaint indicating 

that the Service failed to make a 

preliminary 90-day finding on their two 

multiple-species petitions—one for 

mountain-prairie species, and one for 

southwest species. We subsequently 

published two 90-day findings, on 

January 6, 2009 (74 FR 419), and 

February 5, 2009 (74 FR 6122). The 

February 5, 2009 (74 FR 6122), 90-day 

finding concluded that the petition did 

not present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing may be warranted for 165 of the 

206 species, including the Arapahoe 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
23258 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

snowfly. The finding noted that the 

petition described two actions 

potentially impacting Arapahoe 

snowfly—construction of a small lake in 

the headwaters of one tributary 

providing habitat for the species, and 

recreational use along the length of the 

other tributary providing habitat for the 

species. However, the 2007 petition did 

not link these actions with impacts to 

the species. The most recent petition, 

dated April 6, 2010, provided new and 

more detailed information regarding the 

Arapahoe snowfly. This finding 

responds to that additional information. 

Species Information 

Taxonomy 

The Arapahoe snowfly is a species in 

the class Hexapoda (insects), in the 

order Plecoptera (stonefly), the family 

Capniidae (small winter stoneflies), and 

the genus Capnia (NatureServe 2009, p. 

1). The species was first discovered in 

1986 and was identified as a new 

species in 1988 (Nelson and Kondratieff 

1988, p. 77). The Arapahoe snowfly is 

most closely related to the Utah snowfly 

(Capnia utahensis), found in Utah, 

Nevada, and California, and the Sequoia 

snowfly (C. sequoia), found in 

California (Nelson and Kondratieff 1988, 

p. 79). Its current taxonomic status is 

accepted by the scientific community 

(Integrated Taxonomic Information 

System 2010, p. 1). Therefore, we 

recognize the Arapahoe snowfly as a 

valid species and a listable entity. 

Physical Description 

Arapahoe snowfly adults are dark 

colored (Mazzacano undated, p. 1) and 

have a body length of approximately 0.2 

inches (in) (5 millimeters (mm)) and a 

wing length of also approximately 0.2 in 

(5 mm) (Nelson and Kondratieff 1988, p. 

77). Both sexes have unusually large 

wings for stoneflies (Nelson and 

Baumann 1989, p. 312). The species’ 

size at the immature stage has not been 

described. 

Life History 

Few studies have been conducted on 

the Arapahoe snowfly. Therefore, most 

of the information below comes from 

knowledge about stoneflies (order 

Plecoptera) in general, and other 

members of the winter stonefly family 

(family Capniidae). We expect that the 

life history of the Arapahoe snowfly 

would be consistent with that found for 

other stoneflies and snowflies. 

Stoneflies have a complex lifecycle that 

requires terrestrial habitat during adult 

phases and aquatic habitat during the 

immature (nymph) phases (Lillehammer 

et al. 1989, p. 183; Williams and 

Feltmate 1992, p. 33). In late winter, 

adult winter stoneflies commonly 

emerge from the space that forms under 

stream ice as water levels fall through 

the winter (Hynes 1976, p. 136). In early 

spring, both male and female adult 

stoneflies fly upstream along the stream 

corridor (Macneale et al. 2005, p. 1117). 

The Arapahoe snowfly’s dispersal 

capabilities are unknown. However, 

known dispersal distances of other 

stoneflies range from 197 feet (ft) (60 

meters (m)) to several miles (mi) 

(kilometers (km)), with long-distance 

dispersal possibly due to drifting in the 

wind or attraction to lights (Petersen et 

al. 1999, p. 411). In their search for 

mates, male winter stoneflies drum (beat 

their abdomen on the ground or on dead 

vegetation) with a frequency that is 

species-specific (Hynes 1976, p. 139). 

Mated females detach a ripened egg 

mass onto the water (Hynes 1976, p. 

140). The eggs hatch in early spring. As 

water temperatures rise, the nymphs 

move into the stream’s hyporheic zone 

(a loose rocky substrate under the 

stream saturated with water), undergo a 

period of inactivity (diapause) during 

the warm months, complete 

development during the late fall and 

early winter, and emerge as adults in 

late winter and early spring (Mazzacano 

undated, p. 1). This development is 

completed in a 1-year life cycle. 

Additional details regarding the life 

history of many species in the genus 

Capnia are poorly known due to the 

inherent difficulties of sampling under 

ice in winter and distinguishing 

between species (Mazzacano undated, p. 

2). Consequently, specific feeding 

behavior has not been observed, but 

nymphs of most species in this family 

feed by shredding detritus (Mazzacano 

undated, p. 2). 

Habitat 

Stoneflies, including the Arapahoe 

snowfly, are typically found in cold, 

well-oxygenated streams and rivers with 

a mean temperature less than 61 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F) (16 degrees Celsius (°C)) 

(Baumann 1979, p. 242; Hart et al. 1991, 

p. 124; Williams and Feltmate 1992, p. 

33). Stoneflies are sensitive to most 

types of pollution, and their numbers 

will decrease with a decrease in water 

quality (Baumann 1979, p. 241; Hart et 

al. 1991, p. 136; Williams and Feltmate 

1992, p. 35; Rosenberg and Resh 1993, 

p. 244; Barbour et al. 1999, pp. 7–15). 

The Arapahoe snowfly has been 

collected from two small tributaries to 

the Cache la Poudre River (Young Gulch 

and Elkhorn Creek) in the Front Range 

of the Rocky Mountains of Colorado 

(Nelson and Kondratieff 1988, p. 79). 

The species was collected near the 

confluence of both streams with the 

river (Colorado State University (CSU) 

2005, p. 1). Aerial distance between 

these two tributaries is approximately 5 

mi (8 km). Upper reaches of the streams 

are typified by steep slopes with 

ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) (CSU 

2005, p. 1). Lower reaches, near the 

confluence with the river, have a more 

open topography, with narrowleaf 

cottonwood (Populus angustifolia), 

coyote willow (Salix exigua), 

Drummond’s willow (S. 

drummondiana), Rocky Mountain 

maple (Acer glabrum), chokecherry 

(Padus virginiana), and alder (Alnus 

incana) occurring along the stream 

margins (CSU 2005, p. 1). The stream 

substrate consists of pebble, cobble, and 

bedrock (CSU 2005, p. 1). In summer 

and fall, portions of both streams have 

only intermittent water flow (CSU 2005, 

p. 1). 

Both streams where the Arapahoe 

snowfly has been located are within the 

Canyon Lakes Ranger District in 

Roosevelt National Forest on U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS) lands, but some adjacent 

land is privately owned, particularly in 

the Elkhorn Creek watershed (Matheson 

et al. 2010, p. 9; Mazzacano undated, p. 

3). 

Distribution, Abundance, and Trends 

The distribution and abundance of the 

Arapahoe snowfly are not known prior 

to the species’ discovery in 1986. 

Elkhorn Creek and Young Gulch are the 

only known locations where the 

Arapahoe snowfly has been detected 

(CSU 2005, p. 1). From 2007 to 2009, B. 

Kondratieff and B. Heinold searched six 

additional sites that have suitable 

habitat, including the Cache la Poudre 

River and its nearby tributaries close to 

Young Gulch and Elkhorn Creek, but 

did not locate the species (Matheson et 

al. 2010, p. 7). Numerous visits to 

Young Gulch since the species was 

found there in 1986 have failed to yield 

additional specimens (Nelson and 

Kondratieff 1988, p. 79; CSU 2005, p. 1; 

Mazzacano undated, p. 2). During 

routine survey work on Elkhorn Creek 

from 2007 to 2009, only 5 of the 500 

Capnia stoneflies collected were 

identified as the Arapahoe snowfly, 

indicating rarity at its only known 

occupied habitat (Matheson et al. 2010, 

p. 7). Based upon the information 

available, the species currently has an 

extremely narrow distribution near the 

confluence of one small stream, is rare 

within its only known occupied habitat, 

and has likely been extirpated from one 

of the two streams where it was known 

to occur. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23259 

Evaluation of Information for This 

Finding 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations in the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 

CFR 424 set forth the procedures for 

adding a species to, or removing a 

species from, the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. A species may be 

determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species due to one or more 

of the five factors described in section 

4(a)(1) of the Act: 

(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. 

In considering what factors might 

constitute threats, we must look beyond 

the mere exposure of the species to the 

factor to determine whether the species 

responds to the factor in a way that 

causes actual impacts to the species. If 

there is exposure to a factor, but no 

response, or only a positive response, 

that factor is not a threat. If there is 

exposure and the species responds 

negatively, the factor may be a threat 

and we then attempt to determine the 

significance of that threat. If the threat 

is significant, it may drive or contribute 

to the risk of extinction of the species 

such that the species may warrant 

listing as threatened or endangered, as 

those terms are defined by the Act. This 

does not necessarily require empirical 

proof of a threat. The combination of 

exposure and some corroborating 

evidence of how the species is likely 

impacted could suffice. The mere 

identification of factors that could 

impact a species negatively may not be 

sufficient to compel a finding that 

listing may be warranted. The 

information shall contain evidence 

sufficient to suggest that these factors 

may be operative threats that act on the 

species to the level that the species may 

meet the definition of threatened or 

endangered under the Act. 

In making this 90-day finding, we 

evaluated whether information 

regarding threats to the Arapahoe 

snowfly, as presented in the petition 

and other information available in our 

files, is substantial, thereby indicating 

that the petitioned action may be 

warranted. Our evaluation of this 

information is presented below. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petition asserts that recreation, 

grazing, certain forest management 

practices, development, and barriers to 

dispersal threaten the Arapahoe 

snowfly. These assertions are described 

in more detail below. 

Recreation—The petition asserts that 

recreation is a threat to the Arapahoe 

snowfly, and provides citations 

indicating that both stream drainages, 

but especially Young Gulch, experience 

recreational activities such as hiking, 

bicycling, camping, cross-country 

skiing, and horseback riding 

(Singletracks 2006, p. 1; USFS 2009a, p. 

1; Two Knobby Tires 2009, p. 1; 

Trailcentral 2010, p. 1; Localhikes 

undated, p. 1). The petition asserts that 

these activities can adversely affect 

Arapahoe snowfly habitat via: (1) Runoff 

of pollutants from roads and trails (2) 

the introduction of bacteria and excess 

nutrients from dog, horse, and human 

waste; (3) trampling of streamside 

riparian habitat; (4) increased 

sedimentation from erosion caused by 

foot and bike traffic; and (5) the 

construction and maintenance of stream 

crossings and culverts that can interrupt 

streamflow and deposit sediments. The 

petition provided two references that 

speak generally to the impacts of 

recreation on stream habitats (Goeft and 

Alder 2001, p. 193; International 

Mountain Biking Association 2007, pp. 

1, 8); however, these sources do not 

directly reference the Arapahoe snowfly 

or its habitat. 

Grazing—The petition asserts that 

grazing can degrade water quality and 

negatively impact aquatic invertebrates 

such as the Arapahoe snowfly via: (1) 

Livestock trampling and consuming 

riparian vegetation, (2) livestock 

defecating and urinating in or adjacent 

to the stream channel, and (3) livestock 

increasing rates of erosion and 

sedimentation in the stream channel 

(Matheson et al. 2010, p. 14). The 

petition provided several citations to 

support the assertions regarding the 

general impacts of livestock on riparian 

habitat and associated invertebrate 

communities (Kennedy 1977, p. 52; 

Roath and Krueger 1982, p. 100; Clary 

and Webster 1989, p. 1; Schulz and 

Leininger 1990, p. 295; Chaney et al. 

1993, p. 6; Fleischner 1994, pp. 629, 

635; Leonard et al. 1997, p. 3; Belsky et 

al. 1999, pp. 419, 420–424; Strand and 

Merritt 1999, pp. 17–18; Agouridis et al. 

2005, p. 592; Braccia and Voshell 2007, 

pp. 186, 196–198; McIver and McInnis 

2007, pp. 293, 294, 298, 301). However, 

these sources do not directly reference 

the Arapahoe snowfly or its habitat. 

Forest Management Practices—The 

petition asserts that control of the 

mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus 

ponderosae) and the Red Feather Fuels 

Reduction Project—both conducted by 

the USFS—threaten the Arapahoe 

snowfly (Matheson et al. 2010, p. 16). 

The petition notes that spraying with 

carbaryl to control the ongoing 

mountain pine beetle outbreak is 

occurring at sites near Elkhorn Creek 

(USFS 2009c, pp. 1–2). It also notes that 

carbaryl is highly toxic to invertebrates, 

including stoneflies (Beyers et al. 1995, 

p. 32; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) 2004, pp. 1, 46). 

The Red Feather Fuels Reduction 

Project includes the removal of 

hazardous timber in order to restore 

healthy forests. The petition notes that 

road construction and controlled 

burning are actions associated with the 

removal of timber, and asserts that these 

actions impact the Arapahoe snowfly. 

We address potential impacts from 

roads under the ‘‘Development’’ section 

below. The source associated with 

controlled burns does not directly 

reference the Arapahoe snowfly or its 

habitat (Neary et al. 2008, pp. 142–143). 

Furthermore, the petition notes that an 

uncontrolled wildfire, which may be 

more likely to occur without prescribed 

burning, would likely be catastrophic 

(Matheson et al. p. 17). 

Development—The petition asserts 

that the proximity of Elkhorn Creek to 

the Red Feather Lakes community poses 

risks to stream water quality and 

consequently to the Arapahoe snowfly, 

because of recreational use, road 

impacts, dewatering, and waste seepage 

from septic systems. 

The petition notes general impacts to 

water systems caused by erosion from 

roads (Cederholm et al. 1980, p. 1; 

Anderson and Potts 1987, p. 681; 

Furniss et al. 1991, p. 302; Forman and 

Alexander 1998, p. 219; Trombulak and 

Frissell 2000, p. 18; Fischel 2001, p. ii; 

Gucinski et al. 2001, pp. 24–25; 

Angermeir et al. 2004, p. 19; Center for 

Environmental Excellence 2009, pp. 4– 

7). The petition notes that an increase in 

recreational activities is anticipated due 

to recently improved road and trail 

access in the Elkhorn Creek watershed 

(USFS 2009b, p. 4). It also notes that 

roads and trails are already causing 

damage to Elkhorn Creek (USFS 2009a, 

p. 48). The petition notes that road salts, 

primarily magnesium chloride, are used 

as deicers on roads in the area and may 

increase the salinity of Elkhorn Creek 

(Lewis 1999, p. i). The petition asserts 

that an increase in salinity could pose 

risks to the Arapahoe snowfly (Lewis 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
23260 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1999, p. 30). However, this reference 

does not directly address the Arapahoe 

snowfly or its habitat. 

The petition also asserts that existing 

water withdrawals from Elkhorn Creek 

may result in higher water temperatures 

and decreased dissolved oxygen 

concentrations, thereby impacting the 

species, which requires cool, welloxygenated waters. The petition notes 

the numerous water rights associated 

with the community of Red Feather 

Lakes (Red Feather Historical Society 

2004, p. 405). The petition asserts that 

dewatering can impact biological 

activity in stream substrates, rendering 

them unsuitable for many aquatic 

invertebrates (Hancock 2002, p. 764). 

However, these references do not 

directly address the Arapahoe snowfly 

or its habitat. 

The petition notes that most 

development in the Red Feather Lakes 

area relies on septic systems (George 

Weber Environmental, Inc. 2007, p. 11). 

The petition asserts that septic systems 

pose a potential risk of introducing 

excess nutrients and bacteria into 

Elkhorn Creek (Hancock 2002, pp. 764– 

765; Peterson et al. 2003, pp. 6, 16). 

However, these sources do not directly 

reference the Arapahoe snowfly or its 

habitat. 

Barriers to Dispersal—The petition 

notes that habitat conditions in the 

Cache la Poudre River are impaired 

(City of Fort Collins 2008a, p. 7). The 

petition asserts that this may limit the 

capacity of the Arapahoe snowfly to use 

the river as a route for dispersal to 

colonize other nearby tributaries. This 

outcome would result in the species 

being entirely confined to Elkhorn 

Creek. However, this reference does not 

directly address the Arapahoe snowfly 

or its habitat. 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

Recreation—As the petition noted, the 

Young Gulch trail is popular with hikers 

and mountain bikers (Localhikes.com 

undated, p. 1). Young Gulch also is one 

of the few trails that allows off-leash 

dogs, so it is particularly popular with 

dog owners (Singletracks 2006, p. 1; 

Trailcentral 2010, p. 1; Localhikes.com 

undated, p. 1). Horseback riding, crosscountry skiing, backcountry camping, 

and hunting also are allowed (Two 

Knobby Tires 2009, p. 1). A USFS 

campground is located adjacent to 

where the Arapahoe snowfly was found 

in Young Gulch. 

Information in our files supports the 

assertion in the petition that mountain 

biking can cause soil erosion and 

compaction, degraded water quality, 

trail widening, and changes in 

vegetation (Goeft and Alder 2001, p. 

193; International Mountain Biking 

Association 2007, p. 1). Eroded soil can 

enter water bodies at stream crossings, 

resulting in sedimentation that can 

affect aquatic organisms and contribute 

to algal blooms that deplete dissolved 

oxygen (International Mountain Biking 

Association 2007, p. 8). Sedimentation 

in the stream substrate can clog pore 

spaces in the substrate, resulting in a 

decrease in invertebrates that depend on 

a well-oxygenated hyporheic zone 

(Anderson 1996, p. 6). Hiking and 

horseback riding can have similar 

effects, and animal waste may have an 

additional impact on water quality 

(Mazzacano undated, p. 2). In addition, 

the total number of species of aquatic 

insect larvae (including stoneflies) 

present in a stream decreases as the 

number of stream crossings increases 

(Gucinski et al. 2001, p. 26). Young 

Gulch is estimated to have 30–48 stream 

crossings (Singletracks 2006, p. 1; Two 

Knobby Tires 2009, p. 1; Trailcentral 

2010, p. 1; Localhikes undated, p. 1). 

Recreational use is currently lower in 

Elkhorn Creek than in Young Gulch 

(USFS 2009a, p. 4). However, 

construction of a parking area for 12 

cars and 6 trucks pulling horse trailers 

is under way, to provide improved 

access for hikers, bikers, and horseback 

riders (USFS 2009b, p. 4). The Elkhorn 

Creek watershed is currently rated as 

Class II, or ‘‘at risk’’ of no longer being 

able to support its beneficial uses 

related to native plants and wildlife, 

soils, and watershed functions, with 

several areas where roads and trails are 

causing increased runoff and erosion 

into the Creek (USFS 2009a, p. 48). 

Class-II watersheds exhibit some 

impairment relative to their potential 

optimum condition (USFS 2009a, p. 48). 

Taxa in the order Plecoptera (stoneflies), 

which includes the Arapahoe snowfly, 

are sensitive to impaired water quality 

caused by run-off and erosion, and their 

numbers will decrease with a decrease 

in water quality (Baumann 1979, p. 241; 

Hart et al. 1991, p. 136; Williams and 

Feltmate 1992, p. 35; Rosenberg and 

Resh 1993, p. 244; Barbour et al. 1999, 

pp. 7.15–7.16). 

Most visitors to USFS lands are from 

local areas (USFS 2008b, p. 8). The 

population of nearby Fort Collins has 

grown in recent years (City of Fort 

Collins 2008, p. 1; City of Fort Collins 

2009, p. 1). Consequently, recreational 

use at Elkhorn Creek and Young Gulch 

is likely to increase (USFS 2009b, p. 1). 

Increased recreational use will likely 

increase erosion and resultant 

sedimentation in both streams. Water 

quality in both streams also is likely to 

decrease, due to the introduction of 

more animal waste. 

Information we have in our files 

supports the assertion in the petition 

that the recreational use documented for 

Elkhorn Creek and Young Gulch will 

increase the rate of erosion of sediments 

and the amount of fecal deposition into 

those streams. However, the only sitespecific water quality information we 

have is that the Elkhorn Creek 

watershed is currently rated as Class II, 

or ‘‘at risk’’ of no longer being able to 

support its beneficial uses, with several 

areas where roads and trails are causing 

increased runoff and erosion into the 

creek (USFS 2009a, p. 48). Young Gulch 

currently receives more recreational use 

than Elkhorn Creek. Consequently, we 

assume that similar impacts to the 

Young Gulch watershed are likely. More 

detailed water quality information is not 

available. Taxa in the order Plecoptera 

(stoneflies), which includes the 

Arapahoe snowfly, are sensitive to most 

types of pollution, and their numbers 

will decrease with a decrease in water 

quality (Baumann 1979, p. 241; Hart et 

al. 1991, p. 136; Williams and Feltmate 

1992, p. 35; Rosenberg and Resh 1993, 

p. 244; Barbour et al. 1999, pp. 7.15– 

7.16). Based on the above evaluation, we 

find that the information provided in 

the petition, as well as other 

information readily available in our 

files, presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

recreational use in both Elkhorn Creek 

and Young Gulch may pose a threat to 

the Arapahoe snowfly such that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. 

Grazing—Three active allotments lie 

within the Elkhorn Creek watershed, 

including one directly upstream from 

known Arapahoe snowfly habitat (USFS 

2009a, p. 56). No active grazing 

allotments occur within the Young 

Gulch watershed. The effects of cattle 

grazing on stream water quality in the 

western United States have been well 

documented, and include increased soil 

erosion, sedimentation, fecal deposition, 

and water temperature, as well as 

decreased dissolved oxygen and willow 

canopy (Chaney et al. 1993, p. 6; 

Fleischner 1994, pp. 631–635; Belsky et 

al. 1999, p. 420; Agouridis et al. 2005, 

p. 592; Holland et al. 2005, p. 149; 

Coles-Ritchie et al. 2007, p. 733; McIver 

and McInnis 2007, p. 294). Livestock 

excrement elevates streamwater 

concentrations of inorganic phosphorus 

and nitrogen, which in turn increases 

growth of filamentous algae and 

production by microbes that can reduce 

dissolved oxygen concentrations (Strand 

and Merrit 1999, p. 17). 

Reduced concentrations of dissolved 

oxygen can adversely affect stonefly 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23261 

nymphs, which have high oxygen 

requirements (Williams and Feltmate 

1992, p. 39). Overall, these changes can 

result in decreased populations of 

invertebrates that require cleaner, colder 

waters and coarser substrates (Belsky et 

al. 1999, p. 424). When this occurs, 

sensitive taxa such as stoneflies are 

typically replaced by more tolerant taxa 

such as Chironomidae (Braccia and 

Reese Voshell 2007, p. 186; McIver and 

McInnis 2007, p. 301). We have no sitespecific water quality data regarding 

concentrations of phosphorus, nitrogen, 

or dissolved oxygen, or water 

temperature or other parameters affected 

by fecal deposition from livestock. We 

also have no site-specific data regarding 

sedimentation caused by livestock 

disturbance. However, based upon the 

presence of known active grazing 

allotments in the Elkhorn Creek 

watershed, and well-documented 

impacts to water quality caused by 

grazing at other streams in the western 

United States, there appears to be 

substantial information indicating that 

grazing may be negatively impacting the 

species. Based on the above evaluation, 

we find that the information in the 

petition, as well as other information 

readily available in our files, presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that livestock 

grazing may pose a threat to the 

Arapahoe snowfly such that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. 

Forest Management Practices—The 

forest management practices noted by 

the petition were control of the 

mountain pine beetle and the Red 

Feather Fuels Reduction Project. Both of 

these management practices could result 

in increased road use or the 

construction of new roads (USFS 2009a, 

RAP Appendix). We address impacts 

from roads in the following 

‘‘Development’’ section. Effects from 

spraying insecticide, tree thinning, and 

controlled burns are discussed in this 

section. 

Recent mountain pine beetle 

outbreaks have killed millions of trees 

in Colorado (Black et al. 2010, p. 3). 

Mountain pine beetle infestations are 

building in ponderosa pine forests along 

the Colorado Front Range, including in 

Larimer County (Ciesla 2010, p. 2). 

Control of the mountain pine beetle in 

the Canyon Lakes Ranger District 

includes use of the insecticide carbaryl. 

The USFS crews sprayed more than 

11,000 infested trees in 2009 and 16,000 

infested trees in 2010 in the Canyon 

Lakes Ranger District, with some 

locations near Elkhorn Creek, including 

campgrounds at West and Bellaire Lakes 

(USFS 2009c, p. 1; Matheson 2010, p. 

16). Despite the existence of no-spray 

buffer zones near aquatic habitats, 

insecticide can be deposited in streams 

via aerial drift or runoff from adjacent 

upland areas (Beyers et al. 1995, p. 27). 

Stoneflies are particularly sensitive to 

carbaryl. The EPA rated carbaryl as 

‘‘very highly toxic’’ to aquatic 

invertebrates, and used a species of 

stonefly (Chloroperla grammatica) as 

one of the test species in their 

evaluation (EPA 2004, p. 46). We 

assume that, as a species of stonefly, the 

Arapahoe snowfly would be similarly 

vulnerable. Another study reported that 

virtually all stoneflies were dead 

following an application of carbaryl 

(Courtemanch and Gibbs 1980, as 

reported by Beyers et al. 1995, p. 32). In 

a healthy invertebrate population, 

colonization by unaffected organisms 

living upstream would probably 

compensate for this mortality (Beyers et 

al. 1995, p. 32). However, a narrow 

endemic such as the Arapahoe snowfly 

could potentially be extirpated. 

Therefore, there appears to be 

substantial information indicating that 

the use of carbaryl to control the 

ongoing outbreak of mountain pine 

beetles may be a potential threat to the 

Arapahoe snowfly. Based on the above 

evaluation, we find that the information 

provided in the petition, as well as other 

information readily available in our 

files, presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the use of carbaryl to control the 

ongoing outbreak of mountain pine 

beetles may pose a threat to the 

Arapahoe snowfly such that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. 

The ongoing Red Feather Fuels 

Reduction Project includes thinning of 

forest stands and controlled burns. Tree 

removal associated with thinning can 

increase sedimentation within the 

drainage basin (Anderson 1996, p. 1). 

Increased sedimentation can reduce 

exchange between surface waters and 

the hyporheic zone, and, without flow 

to renew nutrients and oxygen and flush 

wastes, the sediments become 

unsuitable for invertebrates that utilize 

this zone (Hancock, 2002, p. 764). 

Arapahoe snowfly nymphs depend 

upon the hyporheic zone as habitat to 

undergo diapause during the summer 

months (Mazzacano undated, p. 1). 

However, as noted by the petitioners, an 

intense wildfire in the Elkhorn Creek 

drainage, which would be more likely to 

occur without fuel reduction, could be 

catastrophic for the species. The 

responses of aquatic invertebrates to fire 

are indirect and vary widely, with some 

studies showing a decline in abundance, 

species richness, and diversity, and 

others showing a long-term increase in 

these same parameters (Neary et al. 

2008, pp. 142–143). Consequently, there 

is not substantial information to suggest 

that the Red Feather Fuels Reduction 

Project is likely to adversely impact the 

Arapahoe snowfly. Based on the above 

evaluation, we find that the information 

provided in the petition, as well as other 

information readily available in our 

files, does not present substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that the Red Feather Fuels 

Reduction Project may pose a threat to 

the Arapahoe snowfly such that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. 

Development—The petition asserts 

that development from roads, 

dewatering, and septic systems 

associated with the Red Feather Lakes 

community poses a risk to the Arapahoe 

snowfly. Red Feather Lakes has 

approximately 600 residents, as well as 

several tourist facilities. At its closest 

point, Elkhorn Creek comes within 

approximately 2.5 mi (4 km) of Red 

Feather Lakes. 

Information in our files supports the 

fact that road construction and 

subsequent use and maintenance can 

result in increased erosion and 

sedimentation of streams, as well as 

decreased water quality due to 

accidental spills and use of deicers 

(Cederholm et al. 1980, p. 1; Anderson 

and Potts 1987, p. 681; Furniss et al. 

1991, p. 302; Forman and Alexander 

1998, p. 219; Trombulak and Frissell 

2000, p. 18; Fischel 2001, p. ii; Gucinski 

et al. 2001, pp. 24–25; Angermeir et al. 

2004, p. 19; Center for Environmental 

Excellence 2009, pp. 4–7). Increased 

sedimentation can compromise the 

hyporheic zone, upon which Arapahoe 

snowfly nymphs depend (Mazzacano 

undated, p. 1). We are not aware of any 

road crossings or roads running adjacent 

to Young Gulch. There are several areas 

where roads and trails along Elkhorn 

Creek are causing increased runoff and 

erosion, and the watershed is rated as 

Class II or ‘‘at risk’’ (i.e., the watershed 

exhibits moderate integrity relative to its 

potential condition and is at risk of no 

longer being able to support its 

beneficial uses) (USFS 2009a, p. 48). 

Total average road density in the Red 

Feather Lakes area of the Canyon Lakes 

Ranger District is 3.5 mi of road per 

square mile (mi 2) (2.2 km of road per 

square kilometer (km 2), with five stream 

crossings in the Elkhorn Creek 

watershed (USFS 2009a, RAP 

Appendix). Additional temporary roads 

will be constructed during the Red 

Feather Fuels Reduction Project and 

later rehabilitated; however, they will be 

in upland areas, at least 100 ft (30 m) 

from any streams or riparian areas 

(USFS 2008, p. 10). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
23262 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

The Elkhorn Creek watershed is 

currently rated as Class II, or ‘‘at risk’’ of 

no longer being able to support its 

beneficial uses, with several areas where 

roads and trails are causing increased 

runoff and erosion into the Creek (USFS 

2009a, p. 48). Based upon the presence 

of roads in the Elkhorn Creek 

watershed, including several stream 

crossings of Elkhorn Creek, there 

appears to be substantial information 

indicating that erosion from roads may 

be adversely impacting the species. 

Based on the above evaluation, we find 

that the information provided in the 

petition, as well as other information 

readily available in our files, presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that erosion from 

roads in the Elkhorn Creek watershed 

may pose a threat to the Arapahoe 

snowfly such that the petitioned action 

may be warranted. 

The Colorado Department of 

Transportation uses magnesium 

chloride liquid deicers on mountain 

roads (Lewis 1999, p. i). Deicers can 

increase salinity of nearby water bodies 

that receive runoff from roads, which in 

turn degrades habitat for aquatic 

organisms (Kaushal et al. 2005, p. 

13517). If streams are frozen, flushing 

may not occur until temperatures rise in 

the spring (Silver et al. 2009, p. 942). 

Stoneflies are not commonly found in 

waters where salinities are greater than 

1,000 milligrams per Liter (mg/L) (1,000 

parts per million (ppm)) (Hart et al. 

1991, pp. 124, 136). Most studies 

indicate that contamination begins to 

decline within 66 ft (20 m) from the 

road, but may occur 660 ft (200 m) or 

more from the road (Trombulak and 

Frissell 2000, p. 22). We have no 

information indicating what the amount 

of deicer used on these roads may be, 

or if any of the roads where deicer is 

used are near Elkhorn Creek or Young 

Gulch. We also do not have any 

evidence that these stream systems are 

impacted by deicers. Consequently, 

there is not substantial information that 

deicers are likely to adversely impact 

the Arapahoe snowfly. Based on the 

above evaluation, we find that the 

information provided in the petition, as 

well as other information readily 

available in our files, does not present 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that deicers may 

pose a threat to the Arapahoe snowfly 

such that the petitioned action may be 

warranted. 

Existing and proposed water rights, 

associated with private lands in and 

around Red Feather Lakes, allow well 

construction and irrigation diversion, 

and may result in dewatering of 

adjacent streams (Red Feather Historical 

Society 2004, p. 4; Colorado Water 

Conservation Board 2009, p. 10). Based 

upon topographic maps, these water 

rights appear to be predominantly in the 

Gordon Creek and Lone Pine watersheds 

adjacent to Elkhorn Creek. We have no 

information indicating that these 

diversions may have an impact on the 

Elkhorn Creek watershed. Similarly, 

septic systems in and around Red 

Feather Lakes appear to be located 

predominantly in the Gordon Creek and 

Lone Pine watersheds, and not the 

Elkhorn Creek watershed (Red Feather 

Historical Society 2004, p. 4; Colorado 

Water Conservation Board 2009, p. 10). 

However, one wastewater treatment 

facility is located on Elkhorn Creek 

(George Weber Environmental, Inc. 

2007, p. 11). Effluents in wastewater 

discharge may concentrate in the 

hyporheic zone (Hancock 2002, pp. 

763–764). However, we have no 

information indicating that these septic 

systems and treatment facility are 

impacting the Elkhorn Creek watershed. 

Consequently, there is not substantial 

information that dewatering or septic 

systems is likely to adversely impact the 

Arapahoe snowfly. Based on the above 

evaluation, we find that the information 

provided in the petition, as well as other 

information readily available in our 

files, does not present substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that dewatering or septic 

systems may pose a threat to the 

Arapahoe snowfly such that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. 

Barriers to Dispersal—Most stoneflies 

are clumsy fliers that have difficulty 

crossing even small ecological barriers 

(Hynes 1976, p. 135). Consequently, 

they are poor dispersers (Lillehammer et 

al. 1989, p. 173). However, precise 

dispersal capabilities for the Arapahoe 

snowfly are unknown (Mazzacano 

undated, p. 2). The species has 

unusually large wings for a stonefly 

(Nelson and Baumann 1989, p. 312), but 

there is no information indicating what 

effect this may have on dispersal 

capabilities. There also is no 

information regarding whether the 

species uses the Cache la Poudre River 

as a dispersal corridor. Typically, adult 

stoneflies fly upstream along the stream 

corridor prior to mating and laying eggs 

(Macneale et al. 2005, p. 1127) and, 

therefore, would not likely use the river, 

which is downstream of the locale. 

Dispersal of larval stoneflies can include 

downstream drift and upstream 

movement (Peterson et al. 2004, p. 935), 

so it is possible that larvae could drift 

downstream into the river. Upstream 

portions of the river, which would 

include the confluences with Elkhorn 

Creek and Young Gulch, are considered 

generally pristine, with no contaminants 

detected during several years of routine 

sampling (George Weber Environmental, 

Inc. 2007, p. 7). In Fort Collins, the river 

is highly modified, with reduced flow, 

increased water temperature, and 

nutrient loading that are detrimental to 

aquatic insects (City of Fort Collins 

2008a, pp. 5–7). However, the river 

reach through Fort Collins does not 

have the necessary habitat for the 

species and is many miles downstream 

from Elkhorn Creek and Young Gulch. 

Consequently, there is not substantial 

information that barriers to dispersal are 

likely to adversely impact the Arapahoe 

snowfly. Based on the above evaluation, 

we find that the information provided in 

the petition, as well as other 

information readily available in our 

files, does not present substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that barriers to dispersal may 

pose a threat to the Arapahoe snowfly 

such that the petitioned action may be 

warranted. 

Summary of Factor A 

Based upon the information provided 

in the petition, as well as other 

information readily available in our 

files, and considering the very limited 

range of the Arapahoe snowfly and its 

apparent small numbers, we find that 

the petition presents substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that the Arapahoe snowfly 

may warrant listing due to the present 

or threatened destruction, modification, 

or curtailment of the species’ habitat or 

range primarily due to: (1) 

Sedimentation caused primarily by 

erosion from recreation, livestock 

grazing, and roads; (2) reduced 

concentrations of dissolved oxygen 

caused by nutrient enrichment from 

waste deposition during recreation and 

livestock grazing; and (3) the use of 

carbaryl to control the ongoing outbreak 

of mountain pine beetles. There is not 

substantial information to indicate that 

tree thinning, controlled burns, deicers, 

dewatering, septic systems, or barriers 

to dispersal are causing noticeable 

impacts within the Elkhorn Creek or 

Young Gulch watersheds. We will 

assess all of these stressors more 

thoroughly during our status review in 

order to better quantify potential effects 

on the Arapahoe snowfly. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

The petition notes that the Arapahoe 

snowfly is not used commercially and is 

not at risk of over collection. Neither the 

petition nor information within our files 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23263 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information that collection 

was, or is, occurring at a level that 

impacts the overall status of the species. 

Therefore, we find the petition does not 

present substantial scientific or 

commercial information to indicate that 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes may present a threat to the 

Arapahoe snowfly such that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. 

However, we will assess this factor more 

thoroughly during our status review for 

the species. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petition notes that disease and 

predation are not known to threaten the 

Arapahoe snowfly. However, the 

petition also notes that threats from 

disease and predation have never been 

assessed. The petition asserts that the 

rarity and limited range of the species 

make it more vulnerable to extinction 

from normal population fluctuations 

resulting from disease or predation. 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

We address the potential risks due to 

a small population size under Factor E. 

We reviewed information in our files 

and the information provided by the 

petition, and did not find substantial 

information to indicate that disease or 

predation may be outside the natural 

range of variation such that either could 

be considered a threat to the Arapahoe 

snowfly. Therefore, we find the petition 

does not present substantial scientific or 

commercial information to indicate that 

disease or predation may present a 

threat to the Arapahoe snowfly such 

that the petitioned action may be 

warranted. However, we will assess this 

factor more thoroughly during our status 

review for the species. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petition claims that the Arapahoe 

snowfly receives no recognition or 

protection under Federal or state law. 

The petition notes that it is recognized 

as ‘‘critically imperiled’’ by Colorado’s 

Natural Heritage Program. This 

designation means that the species is 

considered to be at very high risk of 

extinction due to extreme rarity (five or 

fewer populations), very steep declines, 

or other factors. However, this 

designation does not provide any 

protection for the species or its habitat. 

The petition notes that the Arapahoe 

snowfly is not listed as a ‘‘sensitive 

species’’ by the USFS. On June 23, 2003, 

we designated a portion of the Cache la 

Poudre River, including the confluences 

of Elkhorn Creek and Young Gulch, as 

critical habitat for the Preble’s meadow 

jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius 

preblei) (68 FR 37275). On December 15, 

2010, we published a revised critical 

habitat rule for Preble’s meadow 

jumping mouse, reaffirming the 

designation of this area (75 FR 78429). 

However, the petition notes that this 

designation does not affect any 

upstream activities, and there is no 

signage within the critical habitat area 

of Elkhorn Creek and Young Gulch 

indicating the presence of the mouse. 

Therefore, the petition asserts that the 

Arapahoe snowfly derives no protection 

from the critical habitat designation. 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

The Arapahoe snowfly currently 

receives no direct protection under 

Federal or State law. It is designated as 

‘‘critically imperiled’’ at both the State 

and global level by Colorado’s Natural 

Heritage Program and NatureServe 

(NatureServe 2009, p. 1), respectively, 

but, as previously noted, this 

designation does not provide any legal 

protection for the species or its habitat. 

The Colorado Natural Heritage Program 

has proposed a Potential Conservation 

Area (PCA) for the species that would 

encompass approximately 5,000 acres 

(ac) (2,000 hectares (ha)) and include 

portions of both Elkhorn Creek and 

Young Gulch (CSU 2005, p. 2). This 

PCA has a Biodiversity Significance 

Rank of B1 for outstanding biodiversity 

significance. This is the highest level of 

biological diversity that can be assigned 

to a site. A PCA can provide planning 

and management guidance, but infers no 

legal status. The Arapahoe snowfly is 

designated as a ‘‘species of greatest 

conservation need’’ by Colorado 

Division of Wildlife, based upon its 

global and State ranking by the Colorado 

Natural Heritage Program (Colorado 

Division of Wildlife 2006, pp. 17, 20), 

but this also confers no protection. 

The Arapahoe snowfly occurs on 

USFS lands and is protected indirectly 

by general Federal laws and regulations 

mandating how USFS lands are 

managed. However, no direct protection 

of the Arapahoe snowfly is provided by 

USFS. 

Projects conducted within the species’ 

occupied habitat may be subject to the 

requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (NEPA). All Federal 

agencies are required to adhere to NEPA 

for projects they fund, authorize, or 

carry out. The Council on 

Environmental Quality’s regulations for 

implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500– 

1518) state that agencies shall include a 

discussion on the environmental 

impacts of the various project 

alternatives, any adverse environmental 

effects which cannot be avoided, and 

any irreversible or irretrievable 

commitments of resources involved (40 

CFR 1502). Additionally, activities on 

non-Federal lands are subject to NEPA 

if there is a Federal action. NEPA is a 

disclosure law, and does not require 

subsequent minimization or mitigation 

measures by the Federal agency 

involved. Although Federal agencies 

may include conservation measures for 

sensitive species as a result of the NEPA 

process, any such measures are typically 

voluntary in nature and are not required 

by the statute. 

Both stream reaches where the 

Arapahoe snowfly has been located are 

included in critical habitat designated 

for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse 

in 2010. Critical habitat extends 360 ft 

(110 m) from the edge of the stream on 

both sides for Young Gulch, and extends 

394 ft (120 m) from the edge of the 

stream on both sides for Elkhorn Creek. 

The bodies of the streams are not 

included. This designation indirectly 

provides some protection to the 

Arapahoe snowfly through section 

7(a)(2) of the Act, which requires 

Federal agencies to confer with us on 

any action funded, authorized, or 

carried out by a Federal agency that is 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the Preble’s meadow 

jumping mouse or destroy or adversely 

modify its critical habitat. 

Examples of specific actions that may 

adversely affect Preble’s meadow 

jumping mouse critical habitat and 

therefore require consultation include 

land clearing, road construction, 

grazing, water diversions, and activities 

that change water, sediment, or nutrient 

inputs, or that significantly and 

detrimentally alter water quantity (75 

FR 78456). Any other activities that 

might adversely affect critical habitat 

would also require consultation. 

However, actions that do not affect the 

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse or its 

habitat, or do not have a Federal nexus, 

would not require consultation. 

Additionally, Federal actions that 

occurred prior to 2003 did not require 

consultation because critical habitat for 

the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse 

had not yet been designated. 

Consequently, there was no potential 

benefit to the Arapahoe snowfly with 

regard to these types of actions before 

the 2003 critical habitat designation. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
23264 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Although there are no regulatory 

mechanisms that directly protect the 

Arapahoe snowfly, its habitat may be 

protected from future adverse impacts 

caused by Federal actions that impact 

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse critical 

habitat. It is not clear whether the 

existing regulatory mechanisms, 

including consultation with Federal 

agencies under section 7 of the Act, 

adequately protect the Arapahoe 

snowfly from potential threats such as 

those determined to be substantial 

under Factor A. At this phase in the 

review process, we cannot seek input 

from outside agencies such as the USFS. 

However, we intend to contact them 

during the status review regarding any 

additional information that they may be 

able to provide on the extent to which 

their existing regulatory mechanisms 

serve to protect the Arapahoe snowfly. 

There is uncertainty about whether or 

not existing regulatory mechanisms are 

adequate for protecting Arapahoe 

snowfly. The petitioners present 

information for further consideration of 

this factor. The fact that the known sites 

lie within the designation of Preble’s 

meadow jumping mouse critical habitat 

offers the Arapahoe snowfly some 

protection from several potential threat 

factors. Additionally, Arapahoe 

snowfly-occupied habitat is on USFS 

lands that are subject to general Federal 

laws and regulations mandating how 

those lands are managed. Given the 

level of information that we have at this 

90-day finding stage, it is unclear 

whether the regulatory mechanisms 

pertaining to Preble’s meadow jumping 

mouse critical habitat and impacts from 

Factor A are inadequate. We recognize 

that the information presented in Factor 

A was substantial. Consequently, we 

will assess all factors, including the 

adequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms, more thoroughly during 

our status review for the species, 

including consideration of stressors 

existing in the immediate vicinity of 

occupied habitat, as well as stressors 

that exist upstream from the critical 

habitat designation. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petition asserts that small 

population size and climate change 

threaten the Arapahoe snowfly. The 

petition presents one citation that 

supports that small populations are 

generally at greater risk of extinction 

from normal population fluctuations, 

natural disasters, and loss of genetic 

diversity (Shaffer 1981, p. 131). The 

petition provides several citations 

describing current and future impacts in 

the western United States from climate 

change (Rood et al. 2005, p. 217; Field 

et al. 2007, p. 623; Barnett et al. 2008, 

p. 1080; Saunders et al. 2008, p. 42). 

The petition asserts that global climate 

change may impact the species through 

increased floods and droughts and 

management actions taken in response 

to the proliferation of mountain pine 

beetles. 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

Small Population Size—The 

Arapahoe snowfly is currently known to 

occur only at one site on Elkhorn Creek 

near its confluence with the Cache la 

Poudre River. It is likely extirpated from 

the other known location on Young 

Gulch. The species is apparently rare at 

its only known occupied habitat on 

Elkhorn Creek—during routine survey 

work from 2007 through 2009, only 5 of 

the 500 Capnia stoneflies collected were 

identified as the Arapahoe snowfly 

(Matheson et al. 2010, p. 7). Information 

in our files supports the information 

presented in the petition that a species 

with such limited distribution and rarity 

is vulnerable to extinction from 

systematic pressures or stochastic 

(random) disruptions (Shaffer 1981, p. 

131). This vulnerability is increased 

when threats are present. Systematic 

pressures on the Arapahoe snowfly 

include impacts on habitat from 

sedimentation caused by recreational 

use, livestock grazing, and road 

construction. Potential stochastic 

disruptions could include natural 

catastrophes such as flood, fire, and 

drought, or genetic changes resulting 

from limited genetic diversity. 

Based upon the information discussed 

under Factor A, and considering the 

very limited range of the Arapahoe 

snowfly and its apparent rarity, we find 

that the petition presents substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted due to the species’ 

small population size. Such a small 

population is more vulnerable to 

systematic pressures such as those 

described above, and any adverse effects 

are likely exacerbated. However, there is 

not sufficient information to indicate 

that stochastic disruptions are likely. 

We will assess all of these stressors 

more thoroughly during our status 

review in order to better quantify 

potential effects on the Arapahoe 

snowfly. 

Climate Change—According to the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC 2007, p. 6), ‘‘warming of 

the climate system is unequivocal, as is 

now evident from observations of 

increases in global average air and ocean 

temperatures, widespread melting of 

snow and ice, and rising global average 

sea level.’’ Average Northern 

Hemisphere temperatures during the 

second half of the 20th century were 

very likely the highest in at least the 

past 1,300 years (IPCC 2007, p. 6). It is 

very likely that over the past 50 years, 

cold days, cold nights, and frosts have 

become less frequent over most land 

areas, while hot days and hot nights 

have become more frequent (IPCC 2007, 

p. 6). It is likely that heat waves have 

become more frequent over most land 

areas, and the frequency of heavy 

precipitation events has increased over 

most areas (IPCC 2007, p. 6). 

Changes in the global climate system 

during the 21st century are likely to be 

larger than those observed during the 

20th century (IPCC 2007, p. 19). For the 

next two decades, a warming of about 

0.4 °F (0.2 °C) per decade is projected 

(IPCC 2007, p. 19). By the end of the 

21st century, average global 

temperatures are expected to increase 

1.1 to 7.2 °F (0.6 to 4.0 °C) from current 

temperatures, with the greatest warming 

expected over land (IPCC 2007, p. 20). 

Several scenarios are virtually certain or 

very likely to occur in the 21st century, 

including: (1) Over most land, there will 

be warmer days and nights in general, 

fewer cold days and nights, and more 

frequent hot days and nights; (2) areas 

affected by drought will increase; and 

(3) the frequency of warm spells and 

heat waves over most land areas will 

likely increase (IPCC 2007, pp. 22, 27). 

The IPCC predicts that the resiliency of 

many ecosystems is likely to be 

exceeded this century by an 

unprecedented combination of climate 

change, associated disturbances (e.g., 

flooding, drought, wildfire, and insects), 

and other global drivers. With medium 

confidence, IPCC predicts that 

approximately 20 to 30 percent of plant 

and animal species assessed so far are 

likely to be at an increased risk of 

extinction if increases in global average 

temperature exceed 3 to 5 °F (1.5 to 2.5 

°C). 

The western United States is being 

affected more by a changed climate than 

any other part of the United States 

outside of Alaska (Saunders et al. 2008, 

p. iv). Colorado is 3.1 °F (1.7 °C) warmer 

over the past 100 years (Saunders et al. 

2008, p. 42). Numerous studies of the 

western United States show more winter 

precipitation falling as rain instead of 

snow, earlier snow melt, and associated 

changes in river flow (Barnett et al. 

2008, p. 1080). Sensitive coldwater 

species are likely to be stressed by 

increasing water temperatures (Rood et 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23265 

al. 2005, p. 217). Disturbances such as 

wildfire and insect outbreaks are 

increasing and are likely to intensify 

with drier soils and a longer growing 

season (Field et al. 2007, p. 619). The 

mountain pine beetle has expanded its 

range into areas previously too cold to 

support it (Field et al. 2007, p. 623; 

Saunders et al. 2008, pp. 21, 23). The 

USFS predicts that in Colorado and 

southern Wyoming, mountain pine 

beetles will likely kill the majority of 

mature lodgepole pine forests within the 

next 3 to 5 years (Saunders et al. 2008, 

pp. 21 and 23). 

Aquatic insects may respond to 

elevated temperatures in the following 

ways: (1) Behaviorally, by emigrating 

from, or changing distribution within, 

stressed regions; or (2) physiologically, 

by adjusting the duration and extent of 

growth and development in immature 

stages, and ultimate size, condition, and 

fecundity as adults (Williams and 

Feltmate 1992, p. 285). Impacts from 

global warming will vary greatly at the 

species level (Williams and Feltmate 

1992, p. 287). The Arapahoe snowfly 

will likely be affected by warmer 

streamflows and by continuing 

outbreaks of mountain pine beetle. 

However, we cannot predict the extent 

to which the species will be able to 

adjust behaviorally or physiologically to 

these changes. We will assess this factor 

more thoroughly during our status 

review for the species. 

In summary, we find that the 

information provided in the petition, as 

well as other information readily 

available in our files, presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted due 

to other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence such as 

the apparent small population size of 

the Arapahoe snowfly, especially given 

the stressors it faces from recreation, 

grazing, and certain forest management 

practices. The species also will likely be 

affected by climate change; however, we 

cannot currently predict the extent to 

which it will be able to adjust to these 

changes. 

Finding 

On the basis of our determination 

under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we 

have determined that the petition 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing the Arapahoe snowfly throughout 

its entire range may be warranted. This 

finding is based on information 

provided under factors A and E. The 

information provided in the petition 

under factors B, C, and D is not 

substantial. 

We are not aware of any information 

regarding impacts from factors A and E 

that specifically pertains to the 

Arapahoe snowfly. However, there is 

adequate information documenting that 

recreation, grazing, carbaryl spraying, 

and road usage are ongoing in Elkhorn 

Creek and that recreation is occurring in 

Young Gulch. There also is adequate 

information documenting the likely 

adverse effects of these activities on 

stoneflies. Consequently, we have 

concluded that since the Arapahoe 

snowfly is a species of stonefly, it is 

likely being adversely affected by these 

activities, particularly in view of its very 

narrow known range and rarity within 

that range. We will assess all of these 

factors more thoroughly during our 

status review for the species. 

Because we have found that the 

petition presents substantial 

information indicating that listing the 

Arapahoe snowfly may be warranted, 

we are initiating a status review to 

determine whether listing the Arapahoe 

snowfly under the Act is warranted. 

The ‘‘substantial information’’ 

standard for a 90-day finding differs 

from the Act’s ‘‘best scientific and 

commercial data’’ standard that applies 

to a status review to determine whether 

a petitioned action is warranted. A 90- 

day finding does not constitute a status 

review under the Act. In a 12-month 

finding, we will determine whether a 

petitioned action is warranted after we 

have completed a thorough status 

review of the species, which is 

conducted following a substantial 90- 

day finding. Because the Act’s standards 

for 90-day and 12-month findings are 

different, as described above, a 

substantial 90-day finding does not 

necessarily mean that the 12-month 

finding will result in a warranted 

finding. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or upon request 

from the Colorado Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Author 

The primary authors of this notice are 

staff members of the Regional Office and 

the Colorado Field Office (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Authority: The authority for this action is 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: April 13, 2011. 

Rowan Gould, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9973 Filed 4–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2011–0007; MO 

92210–0–0008] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To List the Smooth-Billed Ani 

as Threatened or Endangered 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, announce a 90-day 

finding on a petition to list the smoothbilled ani (Crotophaga ani) as 

threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). Based on our review, we 

find that the petition does not present 

substantial information indicating that 

listing the species may be warranted. 

Therefore, we are not initiating a status 

review in response to this petition. 

However, we ask the public to submit to 

us any new information that becomes 

available concerning the status of, or 

threats to, the smooth-billed ani or its 

habitat at any time. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on April 26, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket Number 

FWS–R4–ES–2011–0007. Supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

this finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, South Florida 

Ecological Services Office, 1339 20th 

Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960–3559. 

Please submit any new information, 

materials, comments, or questions 

concerning this finding to the above 

address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Spencer Simon, Assistant Field 

Supervisor, of the South Florida 

Ecological Services Office (see 

ADDRESSES) by telephone 772–562– 

3909, or by facsimile to 772–562–4288. 

If you use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD), please call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that we 

make a finding on whether a petition to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS