```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 26, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23256-23265]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9973]

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

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 23258]]

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 ([deg]F) (16 degrees Celsius ([deg]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.

[[Page 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

[[Page 23260]]

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, well-oxygenated 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, cross-country 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 site-
specific 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

[[Page 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 site-specific 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).

[[Page 23262]]

    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

[[Page 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.

[[Page 23264]]

    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 [deg]F 
(0.2 [deg]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 [deg]F (0.6 to 4.0 [deg]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 [deg]F (1.5 to 2.5 [deg]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 [deg]F (1.7 [deg]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

[[Page 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
```