[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 8, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32514-32521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16080]



[[Page 32514]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R6-ES-2009-0025; MO 922105 0083 - B2]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on 
a Petition to List the Susan's purse-making caddisfly (Ochrotrichia 
susanae) as Threatened or Endangered

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 (Service), announce a 
90-day finding on a petition to list the Susan's purse-making caddisfly 
(Ochrotrichia susanae) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the petition 
presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating 
that listing the Susan's purse-making caddisfly may be warranted. 
Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a 
status review of the species to determine if listing the species is 
warranted. To ensure that the review is comprehensive, we are 
soliciting scientific and commercial data and other information 
regarding this species.

DATES: We made the finding announced in this document on July 8, 2009. 
To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request that we 
receive data and information on or before September 8, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for docket FWS-R6-ES-2009-0025 and follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments 
Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2009-0025; Division of Policy and 
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will post all information received on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information you provide us (see the Information Solicited 
section below for more details).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia S. Gelatt, Western Colorado 
Supervisor, Western Colorado Field Office, 764 Horizon Drive, Building 
B, Grand Junction, CO 81506-3946, by telephone (970-243-2778, extension 
29), or by facsimile (970-245-6933). Persons who use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Information Solicited

    When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial 
information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are 
required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. To 
ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best 
available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting 
information concerning the status of the Susan's purse-making 
caddisfly. We request information from the public, other concerned 
governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific 
community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning the 
status of the Susan's purse-making caddisfly. We are seeking 
information regarding:
    (1) The historical and current status and distribution of the 
Susan's purse-making caddisfly, its biology and ecology, and ongoing 
conservation measures for the species and its habitat; and
    (2) Information relevant to the factors that are the basis for 
making a listing determination for a species under section 4(a) of the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), which are:
    (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of the species' 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 and threats to the species or its habitat.
    If we determine that listing the Susan's purse-making caddisfly is 
warranted, it is our intent to propose critical habitat to the maximum 
extent prudent and determinable at the time we propose to list the 
species. Therefore, with regard to areas within the geographical range 
currently occupied by the Susan's purse-making caddisfly, we also 
request data and information on what may constitute physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species, where 
these features are currently found, and whether any of these features 
may require special management considerations or protection. In 
addition, we request data and information regarding whether there are 
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 the Act.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for or 
opposition to the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 
determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered 
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available.'' Based on the status review, we will issue 
a 12-month finding on the petition, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) 
of the Act.
    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 website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document that we withhold this 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. Please include sufficient information with your 
comments to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information 
you include.
    Information and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this finding, will be available for 
public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment 
during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Western Colorado Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

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

[[Page 32515]]

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 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 commence a 
status review of the species.
    On July 8, 2008, we received a petition via e-mail from the Xerces 
Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Dr. Boris C. Kondratieff 
(Colorado State University), Western Watersheds Project, WildEarth 
Guardians, and Center for Native Ecosystems requesting that the Susan's 
purse-making caddisfly be listed as endangered under the Act and 
critical habitat be designated. 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 August 5, 2008, 
letter to the petitioners, we responded that we had reviewed the 
petition and determined that an emergency listing was not necessary. We 
also stated that due to court orders and settlement agreements for 
other listing and critical habitat actions, all of our fiscal year 2008 
listing funds had been allocated and that further work on the petition 
would not take place until fiscal year 2009.

Species Information

    The Susan's purse-making caddisfly is a small, hairy, brown 
caddisfly in the family Hydroptilidae. Adult forewings are 2 
millimeters (mm) (0.08 inch (in.)) in length and are dark brown with 
three transverse silver bands, one each at the wing base, the wing 
midline, and the wing apex (Flint and Herrmann 1976, p. 894).
    The larvae of Hydroptilidae are unusual among the case-making 
families of Trichoptera in that they are free-living until the final 
(fifth) larval instar (developmental stage between molts) (Wiggins 
1996, p. 72). When the larvae molt to the fifth instar, they develop 
enlarged abdomens, build purse-shaped cases from silk and sand, and 
become less active (Wiggins 1996, p. 71). They construct a case which 
can be portable or cemented to the substrate (Wiggins 1996, p. 71). 
Larvae in this family are very small but can reach up to 6 mm (0.3 in.) 
(Wiggins 1996, p. 71). The head and the dorsal surface (top) of all 
three thoracic segments are dark brown and sclerotized (hardened) 
(Flint and Herrmann 1976, p. 894). Larval cases are small, flattened, 
bivalved, and open at each end, similar to other members of the genus 
Ochrotrichia. However, the Susan's purse-making caddisfly larval cases 
are slightly shorter proportionally and are made from smaller grains of 
sand (Flint and Herrmann 1976, p. 894). The larvae eventually pupate 
within the case.
    Feeding behavior of the Susan's purse-making caddisfly larvae has 
not been observed directly, but larvae in this genus generally feed by 
scraping diatoms from rocks (Wiggins 1996, p. 96). Where the species 
has been collected, rocks that were thickly covered with larval cases 
were also associated with heavy growths of filamentous algae and moss 
(Flint and Herrmann 1976, p. 897).
    Adult Trichoptera have reduced mouthparts and lack mandibles, but 
can ingest liquids. The adult flight period was estimated to be from 
late June to early August by Flint and Herrmann (1976, p. 897), 
although adults were collected from mid-April to late July in a later 
survey (Herrmann et al. 1986, p. 433). The Susan's purse-making 
caddisfly is thought to produce one generation per year (Flint and 
Herrmann 1976, p. 897).

Taxonomy

    The Susan's purse-making caddisfly was first described by Flint and 
Herrmann (1976, pp. 894-898) from specimens taken in 1974 at Trout 
Creek in Chaffee County, Colorado. The genus Ochrotrichia is widespread 
and fairly diverse in North America, with over 50 described species 
(Wiggins 1996, p. 96). Adults can be distinguished from other species 
in the genus Ochrotrichia based on characteristics of the genitalia.

Historic and Current Distribution

    From 1974 to 1994, the Susan's purse-making caddisfly was only 
known to exist at and below Trout Creek Spring on U.S. Forest Service 
(USFS) land in Chaffee County, Colorado. Larvae, pupae, and adults were 
collected at the spring outfall area and as far downstream in Trout 
Creek as ~130 meters (m) (430 feet (ft)). Trout Creek Spring is at an 
elevation of about 2,750 m (9,020 ft). A review of specimens collected 
in Colorado prior to 1987 determined that the Susan's purse-making 
caddisfly was still found only in the type locality (location type 
where first found) (Herrmann et al. 1986, p. 433).
    In 1995, specimens were collected at a new site, High Creek Fen in 
Park County, Colorado, about 27 air kilometers (17 air miles) north of 
the type locality (Durfee and Polonsky 1995, pp. 1, 5, 7). High Creek 
Fen is a unique groundwater-fed wetland with high ecological diversity; 
it is considered a rare type of habitat and the southernmost example of 
this type of ecosystem in North America (Cooper 1996 pp. 1801, 1808; 
Rocchio 2005, p. 10; Legg 2007, p. 1). High Creek Fen is primarily 
owned by The Nature Conservancy TNC) and the Colorado State Land Board, 
as well as private landowners.

Status

    The Susan's purse-making caddisfly has a Global Heritage Status 
Rank of G2, a National Status Rank of N2, and a Colorado State Rank of 
S2 (NatureServe 2008, pp. 1-4). NatureServe defines the G2 rank as 
signifying that a species is imperiled (at a high risk of extinction) 
globally due to a very restricted range, very few populations, steep 
population declines, or other factors. The N2 and S2 ranks are assigned 
based upon the same factors, and species in these categories are 
defined as vulnerable to extirpation nationally or within a state or 
province. In the case of the Susan's purse-making caddisfly, if it is 
extirpated in Colorado, it will mean the species is extinct. No 
population estimates exist for the Susan's purse-making caddisfly, but 
it is only known to occur at Trout Creek Spring and High Creek Fen.

Habitat Requirements

    Physical and chemical conditions of the type locality spring were 
assessed when the Susan's purse-making caddisfly was first collected 
and described (Flint and Herrmann 1976, pp. 894-897). The results 
suggested that this species has a relatively narrow set of ecological 
requirements. Water temperatures in the spring habitat were cold and 
varied little (14.4 to 15.8 \o\Celsius (\o\C)) (57.9 to 60.4 
\o\Farenheit (\o\F)). Stream conditions included extremely high levels 
of dissolved oxygen (at or near 100 percent saturation), as well as 
high concentrations of dissolved calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), and 
sulfate (SO<INF>4</INF>), which gave the water a higher electrical 
conductance value than typically seen in most regional streams at the 
same elevation. It is unknown at this time if this is significant to 
the species. Overall, larvae appear to inhabit waters in small streams 
that are cold, well-oxygenated,

[[Page 32516]]

highly buffered, and low in trace metals. Larvae and pupae were 
collected primarily from the sides of rocks in both the spring outfall 
and the downstream locations, especially in areas directly below small 
waterfalls in the creek, and were often clustered in clumps that 
covered the rocks (Flint and Herrmann 1976, pp. 894-897). High Creek 
Fen appears to have similar water quality as Trout Creek Spring (Durfee 
and Polonsky 1995, p. 5; Cooper 1996, pp. 801, 803).

Five-Factor Evaluation

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) 
set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species or subspecies 
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 making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information 
regarding the Susan's purse-making caddisfly as presented in the 
petition is substantial, thereby indicating that the petitioned action 
may be warranted. Our evaluation of this information is presented 
below. We did not have any information on this species prior to 
receiving the petition. Most, but not all, references cited in the 
petition were provided to us by the petitioners. We were able to locate 
most of the additional references cited in the petition that were not 
included with the petition.

A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of 
the Species' Habitat or Range

    The petitioners state that the primary threats to the survival of 
the Susan's purse-making caddisfly are impairment and destruction of 
their restricted habitat due to livestock grazing and logging-related 
activities. They also point out potential threats to the Susan's purse-
making caddisfly by dewatering of its habitat, road sedimentation, and 
recreation, including hiking, camping, and off-road vehicle (ORV) use.
Livestock Grazing
    The petitioners believe that the Trout Creek Spring area is being 
impacted by grazing and will continue to be impacted by livestock 
grazing around and upstream of the spring area. The USFS 2007 Draft 
Environmental Assessment for the Rangeland Allotment Management 
Planning on the Salida-Leadville-South Park Planning Area (Draft 
Grazing EA) was cited by the petitioners as documentation for grazing 
impacts. The petitioners believe the spring and section of Trout Creek 
occupied by the Susan's purse-making caddisfly are in the Chubb 
Allotment, but maps in the Draft Grazing EA are unclear. In addition, 
the spring and occupied section of Trout Creek may be in the Four-mile 
Allotment. When we conduct a 12-month finding on the Susan's purse-
making caddisfly, we will obtain accurate location information from the 
USFS. If the Susan's purse-making caddisfly is in the Four-mile 
Allotment, activities within either the Chubb or Four-mile allotment 
could have impacts on the caddisfly and its habitat through vegetation 
removal or through erosion and contribution of sediment to the stream. 
If the Susan's purse-making caddisfly and its habitat are only in the 
Chubb Allotment, only activities in the Chubb Allotment will affect the 
caddisfly, since it is upstream of the Four-mile Allotment.
    The petitioners cite references stating that livestock grazing 
creates greater erosion potential due to removal of riparian and upland 
vegetation, removal of soil litter, increased soil compaction via 
trampling, and increased area of bare ground (Schultz and Leininger 
1990, pp. 297-298; Fleischner 1994, pp. 631-636). The Draft Grazing EA 
states that upland bench and transition areas on State-owned lands in 
the Chubb Allotment have higher than expected bare ground with some 
nonnative plant species and some willow die-back in the riparian zone, 
possibly due to drought (USFS 2007a, p. 10). The petition states that 
most of the accessible forage in the Chubb Allotment is in riparian 
areas. The petitioners also cite references that negative effects of 
livestock grazing can frequently be magnified in riparian ecosystems, 
as cattle tend to congregate in these areas for the abundant forage, 
shade, and water (Roath and Krueger 1982, pp. 101-102; Gillen et al. 
1984, pp. 551-552; Chaney et al. 1993, pp. 6, 15).
    The Draft Grazing EA states that in grassland areas within the 
Four-mile Allotment there is evidence of drought throughout the 
allotment and high incidence of bare ground (USFS 2007a, p. 11). 
However, the riparian area in the Four-mile Allotment appears to be in 
good shape with the exception of cottonwood regeneration (USFS 2007a, 
p. 11).
    The petitioners believe that continued grazing will likely increase 
the severity of these identified problems. Bare, compacted soils allow 
less water infiltration, which generates more surface runoff and can 
contribute to erosion as well as flooding and stream bank alterations 
(Abdel-Magid et al. 1987, pp. 304-305; Orodho et al. 1990, pp. 9-11; 
Chaney et al. 1993, pp. 8-15). Increased erosion leads to higher 
sediment loads in nearby waters, degrading habitat and increasing water 
turbidity. The petitioners believe these problems will be exacerbated 
by removal of riparian vegetation by livestock, as a riparian buffer 
helps filter overland runoff, slow flooding, and stabilize stream 
banks. The petition states that areas of bare ground also can 
facilitate the colonization and spread of invasive species, further 
reducing riparian vegetation quality. Seeds and propagules of such 
weeds and noxious species can be introduced by livestock via their fur, 
hooves, or dung. The petitioners believe that livestock grazing in and 
upstream of the area around the type of springs utilized by the Susan's 
purse-making caddisfly has the potential to result in habitat 
degradation and destruction due to the impacts stated above.
    The petitioners believe that the combined impacts of vegetation 
loss, soil compaction, stream bank destabilization, and increased 
sedimentation associated with intensive livestock grazing can have a 
profound effect on aquatic macroinvertebrates. The petition cites a 4-
year study, conducted in a mountain stream in northeastern Oregon, 
which found a dramatic decline in macroinvertebrate abundance and 
species richness for some taxa, including caddisflies, on grazed versus 
ungrazed sites (McIver and McInnis 2007, pp. 293, 300-301). The 
petition also states that a variety of aquatic macroinvertebrate 
community attributes relating to taxa diversity, community balance, 
trophic status, and pollution tolerance were strongly negatively 
impacted by moderate or heavy grazing in small mountain streams in 
Virginia, compared to lightly grazed or ungrazed control areas (Braccia 
and Voshell 2007, pp. 196-198).
    The petitioners believe that the habitat around Trout Creek Spring 
is currently subject to reduced riparian vegetation and that continued 
grazing around Trout Creek Spring will further remove riparian 
vegetation, reducing the shading canopy and leading to rising water 
temperatures and lower dissolved oxygen levels. The Susan's purse-

[[Page 32517]]

making caddisfly requires cold, fast-running, well-oxygenated water 
(Flint and Herrmann 1976, p. 897), and the petitioners believe the 
species is likely to be negatively impacted by decreased riparian 
vegetation, stream bank destabilization, and increases in water 
temperature brought on by grazing.
Hazardous Fuel Reduction Activities
    The petitioners state that the Trout Creek area may be impacted by 
a logging and hazardous fuel reduction project called the North Trout 
Creek Forest Health and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Project (Fuel 
Reduction Project), which will treat approximately 3,500 hectares (ha) 
(8,700 acres (ac)) with salvage logging, thinning, and prescribed fire 
to reduce hazardous fuel loads. The North Trout Creek Forest Health and 
Hazardous Fuel Reduction Final Economic Analysis (Fuel Reduction EA) 
for the project is dated February 2007 (USFS 2007b, pp. 1-143 + maps), 
with a Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact signed on 
April 3, 2007 (USFS 2007c, pp. 1-25). The Salida Ranger district has 
also recently instituted a new Federal Business Opportunity (FBO) 
program adjacent to the North Trout Creek project area called Ranch of 
the Rockies (USFS 2007d, pp. 1-3), which involves 35 ha (86 ac) in the 
Trout Creek Pass area. This timber sale project involves skidding and 
yarding live and dead trees and piling the resulting slash. The 
petitioners state that roads and prescribed fire related to logging and 
hazardous fuels reduction can impact the Susan's purse-making 
caddisfly.
    The Fuel Reduction EA states that upland areas on bench and 
transition areas in the Chubb Allotment have localized areas of bare 
ground with some nonnative plant species and some willow die-back in 
the riparian zone, possibly due to drought (USFS 2007b, p. 35). The 
Fuel Reduction EA states that in grassland and in bench and transition 
areas within the Four-mile Allotment, evidence of drought occurs 
throughout the allotment and a high incidence of bare ground with 
invading nonnative plants occurs. The Fuel Reduction EA also states 
that the riparian area in the Four-mile Allotment appears to be in good 
shape with the exception of cottonwood regeneration (USFS 2007b, p. 
36).

Logging Roads

    The petitioners cite Cederholm et al. (1980, p. 25), who state that 
disturbance associated with logging road construction and operation is 
a significant source of sediment load in streams. Similar to the 
effects of livestock grazing on aquatic habitats, roads remove 
vegetation, compact soil (reducing water infiltration), increase 
erosion and sedimentation, increase the amount and pattern of surface 
runoff, introduce contaminants, and facilitate the spread of invasive 
plant species (Anderson 1996, pp. 1-13; Forman and Alexander 1998, pp. 
210, 216-221; Jones et al. 2000, pp. 77-82; Trombulak and Frissell 
2000, pp. 19, 24; Gucinski et al. 2001, pp. 12-15, 22-32, 40-42; 
Angermeier et al. 2004, pp. 19-24). The cumulative effects on streams 
include increases in siltation, increases in nonpoint source pollution, 
increases in water temperatures, and decreases in dissolved oxygen 
levels.
    The petition states that unpaved roads are a primary source of 
sediment in forested watersheds (Sugden and Woods 2007, p. 193). The 
Fuel Reduction EA does not propose to create new permanent roads, but 
would allow creation of about 10 kilometers (km) (6 miles (mi)) of new 
temporary roads and reopen 16 km (10 mi) of existing closed roads (USFS 
2007b, p. 83). The sediment yield from construction of temporary roads 
and reopening of closed roads associated with the Fuel Reduction 
Project is estimated to be 41.2 tons/year, with 9.3 times greater 
sediment load in the Trout Creek watershed predicted from the action 
versus no action alternatives (USFS 2007b, p. 83). The petition states 
that even the use of temporary roads can have a long-term effect on 
soil compaction, as studies conducted in California indicated that soil 
in logging skid trails that had not been used in 40 years remained 20 
percent more compacted than soil in nearby areas that were not used as 
skid trails (Vora 1988, pp. 117, 119).

Prescribed Fire

    The petition states that, in addition to logging activities, the 
Fuel Reduction Project involves prescribed burns (USFS 2007b, map 2.3), 
and the Ranch of the Rockies timber sale project (USFS 2007d, pp. 1-3) 
involves burning piles of slash. The petition states that regular burns 
conducted around the area of Trout Creek Spring could have a negative 
impact on stream quality, because burning has been shown to affect 
aquatic habitats and watersheds in a variety of ways (Neary et al. 
2005, pp. 1-250). For instance, mechanical site preparation and road 
construction needed to conduct prescribed burns can lead to increased 
erosion and sediment production, especially on steep terrain. Removal 
of leaf litter from the soil surface through burning can lead to 
reduced water infiltration into the soil, increasing the amount of 
surface runoff into streams. Additionally, ash depositions following a 
fire can affect the pH of water. Negative impacts may be exacerbated by 
burning slash piles, since the fire intensity is greater when the fuel 
is piled in a small area which can have a stronger impact on the 
underlying soil.
    The petitioners believe that cumulative effects of increased 
erosion, increased sedimentation, and nonpoint source pollution from 
prescribed fire associated with logging activities in the area near the 
Susan's purse-making caddisfly habitat are likely to have a serious 
deleterious effect on this species. However, the petitioners provide no 
information to quantify the magnitude of potential cumulative effects 
from these activities.
Dewatering of Spring Habitats
    The petition states that Trout Creek Spring is not currently 
proposed for livestock water development, but several other water 
developments exist and are being pursued in the Chubb Park area. The 
petitioners believe the development of numerous springs in the area 
could affect the hydrology of remaining springs and streams, in 
addition to reducing potential new habitat for the Susan's purse-making 
caddisfly colonization. The petition states that reduction of stream 
flow due to increased groundwater use and water diversion can have a 
dramatic impact on stream habitat and associated macroinvertebrate 
communities. The petition states that a range of studies examined in a 
review of the subject by Dewson et al. (2007, pp. 401-411) indicated 
that artificial flow reductions frequently lead to changes such as 
decreased water depth and increased sedimentation, as well as altered 
water temperature and water chemistry, thereby reducing or influencing 
macroinvertebrate numbers, richness, competition, predation, and other 
interactions. The petitioners believe the restricted distribution and 
narrow habitat requirements of the Susan's purse-making caddisfly make 
it likely that human-induced alterations in stream hydrology and water 
chemistry will have a negative impact on this species.
    High Creek Fen, where the second known population of the Susan's 
purse-making caddisfly exists, is part of a 485-ha (1,200-ac) preserve 
owned and managed by TNC. The petition states that Park County, where 
the preserve is located, has experienced significant population 
increases since the 1990s, and is currently considered one of the 
fastest-growing counties in Colorado

[[Page 32518]]

(Miller and Ortiz 2007, p. 2). Population growth in this area is 
accompanied by an increased demand for fresh drinking water. In 2000, 
89 percent of the population of Park County received water from 
groundwater sources (Miller and Ortiz 2007, p. 2). The area surrounding 
High Creek Fen is currently being protected, but the fen itself is fed 
by groundwater sources. The petitioners believe sustained or increasing 
groundwater removal to support increased human development is likely to 
have a deleterious effect on the hydrology of this vulnerable habitat 
and the unique plant and invertebrate species it supports, including 
the Susan's purse-making caddisfly. However, the petitioners provide no 
information to quantify the magnitude or temporal aspect of potential 
effects from this activity.
Roads
    In addition to roads associated with timber-related projects as 
described above, the petition states that the springs utilized by the 
Susan's purse-making caddisfly are impacted by Highway 285 and Forest 
Road 309 (USFS 2007b, map 2.3).
    Highway 285, which receives heavy traffic, runs within a few 
hundred meters (several hundred feet) of Trout Creek Spring. The 
petition states that roads accumulate a variety of contaminants 
including brake dust, heavy metals, and organic pollutants, which are 
carried directly into streams by overland runoff (Forman and Alexander 
1998, pp. 219-221; Trombulak and Frissell 2000, pp. 19, 22-24; Gucinski 
et al. 2001, pp. 40-42). Forest Road 309, which is immediately above 
the spring, receives periodic maintenance, including grading, which, 
the petition states, can increase the rate of erosion and deliver 
increased silt loads to the type locality spring and stream (Gucinski 
et al. 2001, pp. 12-15).
Recreation
    The petition states that population growth in and around the 
project area has led to increased numbers of recreational users. The 
pressure of recreational users is likely to remain high, because the 
population growth this area has experienced in recent years is expected 
to continue. The population of Chaffee County increased 28.1 percent 
from 1990 to 2000, with much of the growth occurring in unincorporated 
areas, and the population of Colorado is expected to increase by about 
50 percent within the next 20 to 25 years (Chaffee County Comprehensive 
Plan 2000, p. 10).

Camping and Hiking

    The petition states that the Chubb Park area is a popular site for 
outdoor enthusiasts, and is a year-round destination for hunting, 
mountain biking, scenic drives, bird watching, hiking, and camping. 
Population increases in the region also have increased the numbers of 
regular local users, and recreational use is likely to continue to 
intensify, based on national trends. A study of outdoor recreation 
trends in the United States (Cordell et al. 1999, pp. 219-321) found 
increases in participation in most of the activities surveyed, which 
included bicycling, primitive or developed area camping, birdwatching, 
hiking, backpacking, and snowmobiling.
    The petitioners believe intensified human activities in and around 
natural areas will have unavoidable negative impacts on habitat. For 
example, the petitioners state that unauthorized trails have been 
created by hikers along streams in the area around Trout Creek Spring. 
In addition, hikers may intentionally or through negligence leave gates 
open that are intended to restrict livestock from riparian areas or 
from grazed pastures that are being rested. Direct damage to Trout 
Creek Spring is possible, as it is a desirable water source for campers 
(USFS 2007e, p. 2). The petition states that increased human passage to 
the spring to obtain water could damage the riparian zone and disturb 
habitat. In addition, if campers use the spring to wash themselves or 
their cookware, the water quality of the spring could be negatively 
impacted by detergents. The petitioners believe that the activities of 
large numbers of recreational users could damage the integrity of the 
habitat of the Susan's purse-making caddisfly through trampling and 
removal of riparian vegetation, compacting soil, creating ruts and bare 
ground across portions of upland and riparian zones, and lowering water 
quality.

Off-Road Vehicle Use in Non-designated Areas

    The petition states that unauthorized off-road vehicle (ORV) and 
motorcycle usage and impacts have been documented in the Trout Creek 
watershed and around the Trout Creek Spring type locality (Teves and 
Stednick 2005, pp. 14, 19; USFS 2007e, pp. 2-3). The petition states 
that on the national level, ORV usage has risen substantially; the 
number of people who reported engaging in ORV activities rose by 8 
million individuals between 1982 and 1995, and an increase of 16 
percent nationally is anticipated during the next 50 years (Bowker et 
al. 1999, pp. 339-340; Garber-Yonts 2005, p. 30). ORV use in the Trout 
Creek watershed is extensive, and as much as 80 percent of the trails 
in some areas have been created illegally (Teves and Stednick 2005, p. 
14). The petitioners believe illegal ORV use can negatively impact 
conditions in riparian areas through damage to riparian vegetation and 
stream banks, leading to increased sedimentation.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition
    We reviewed the petition, the references included with the 
petition, and the references cited by the petitioners that we were able 
to locate. The petition documents that grazing occurs upstream and 
immediately around Trout Creek Spring, and presents information that 
demonstrates that grazing is currently having deleterious effects on 
the Susan's purse-making caddisfly habitat and vegetation surrounding 
the stream and wetland areas where the caddisfly occurs. The Draft 
Grazing EA states that the Chubb Allotment has livestock concentrating 
in low lying areas, infrastructure is not adequate to control 
livestock, hoof action is causing bank trampling and plant pedestalling 
in the riparian area, and there is a need to maintain or improve the 
riparian area (USFS 2007a, p. 22). For the Four-mile Allotment, the 
Draft Grazing EA states that infrastructure is not adequate to control 
livestock, and there is a need to maintain or improve riparian areas 
(USFS 2007a, p. 22). Furthermore, the USFS Sensitive Species 
designation for the Susan's purse-making caddisfly points out that 
grazing cannot be discounted as a threat (USFS 2007e, p. 2).
    Effects from large-scale or intense burns, and from the 
construction of new logging roads, may be occurring. According to a map 
in the Fuel Reduction EA (USFS 2007b, map 2.3), no prescribed burns 
will occur immediately around or upstream of Trout Creek Spring, but 
burns higher up in the watershed, in the Chubb Park area, could add 
sediment from the burning and thinning activities. The Fuel Reduction 
EA states that 9.3 times greater sediment load in the Trout Creek 
watershed is expected from the action alternative relative to the no 
action alternative (USFS 2007b, p. 83). We could find no evidence that 
the Ranch of the Rockies timber sale (USFS 2007d, pp. 1-3) would 
involve burning. Nonetheless, the creation of temporary roads and skid 
trails in the Ranch of the Rockies timber sale area could further

[[Page 32519]]

increase sedimentation. The Fuel Reduction EA did not contain a 
description of the timeline for the prescribed burns or thin and burn 
projects, other than a statement that treatments would occur at various 
intervals (USFS 2007b, p. 55). If burns and thinning treatments are 
placed too closely together in either time or space, we believe 
increased impacts from sedimentation could occur.
    Although the Draft Grazing EA does not contain concrete statements 
that further water development will occur for grazing purposes, water 
development for grazing purposes is listed as an option in several 
places both on Chubb and Four-mile allotments and as a standard 
practice throughout the planning area (USFS 2007a, pp. 47, 50, 54). The 
Draft Grazing EA states that no stock water is available in uplands to 
draw cattle away from low lying areas within the Chubb Allotment (USFS 
2007a, p. 22). Similarly, the Draft Grazing EA states that limited 
stock water is available in uplands to draw cattle away from low lying 
areas within the Four-mile Allotment (USFS 2007a, p. 22). Furthermore, 
surface water or groundwater depletions farther upstream in the High 
Creek watershed could impact the Susan's purse-making caddisfly at High 
Creek Fen. We find that there is only speculative information provided 
in the petition regarding future water development in either area.
    Trout Creek Spring is located in a very narrow corridor between 
Highway 285 and Forest Road 309. As documented in some studies (Forman 
and Alexander 1998, pp. 219-221; Trombulak and Frissell 2000, pp 19, 
22-24; Gucinski et al. 2001, pp. 12-15, 40-42) and mentioned in the 
Fuel Reduction EA (USFS 2007b, p. 83), it is likely that erosion and 
increased sediment load will occur as a result of maintenance and use 
of the roads. Contaminant impacts from road salts and vehicles could 
occur, but the petition provided little information on these particular 
impacts.
    According to the USFS Sensitive Species designation, ORV use has 
been documented to impact the habitat around Trout Creek Spring (USFS 
2007e, pp. 2-3). The Sensitive Species designation also states that 
dispersed recreation could be an impact, but this appears to be less 
certain. Portions of the Four-mile Allotment apparently have high 
recreational use (USFS 2007a, p. 22) but it is not clear if high 
recreational use occurs around Trout Creek Spring. The petition did not 
indicate that recreational use at High Creek Fen was a threat.
    Overall, we find that the petition presents substantial information 
indicating that listing the Susan's purse-making caddisfly may be 
warranted based on the present or threatened destruction, modification, 
or curtailment of the species' habitat or range through impacts of 
livestock grazing, erosion and sedimentation from logging roads, and 
sedimentation from prescribed fire activities. We find that the 
petition does not present substantial information indicating that 
listing the Susan's purse-making caddisfly may be warranted based on 
impacts from dewatering of spring habitats; contaminant runoff from 
existing roads; erosion and sediment impacts from existing roads; or 
recreational impacts from ORV use, camping, or hiking at either Trout 
Creek or High Creek Fen.

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

    The petitioners believe that because this species is so rare, 
collection is a potential threat. The petitioners state that, in 
general, because of the high fecundity of insects, the collection of 
insects typically poses little threat to their populations. However, in 
the case of the Susan's purse-making caddisfly, where it is restricted 
to only two small sites, the petitioners believe that collection of 
individuals for scientific or educational purposes could significantly 
reduce production of offspring and affect the species.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition
    The Susan's purse-making caddisfly occupies only two small sites, 
so overutilization could easily occur if people wanted to collect the 
caddisfly. However, the petitioners provided no evidence that 
overutilization has been or will be a threat to the Susan's purse-
making caddisfly. Consequently, the petition does not provide 
substantial information indicating that listing the Susan's purse-
making caddisfly may be warranted due to overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.

C. Disease or Predation

    The petitioners state that neither disease nor predation appear to 
be a threat to the Susan's purse-making caddisfly. However, they state 
that little is known about the life history and ecology of the Susan's 
purse-making caddisfly, and threats from disease or predation have 
never been assessed. They also state that small size of the only two 
known populations of the Susan's purse-making caddisfly makes this 
species more vulnerable to extinction as a result of normal population 
fluctuations due to predation or disease.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition
    The Susan's purse-making caddisfly may be more vulnerable to 
extinction from disease or predation as a result of its small 
population size. However, the petitioners present no evidence of 
current disease or predation problems, nor do they provide information 
to link this to a potential problem in the future. Consequently, the 
petition does not provide substantial information indicating that 
listing the Susan's purse-making caddisfly may be warranted due to 
disease or predation.

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The petitioners state that the Susan's purse-making caddisfly 
receives no Federal or State protection. It is listed as USFS Region 2 
sensitive species (USFS 2007e, pp. 1-3), but the petitioners state that 
potential impacts to the Susan's purse-making caddisfly from the Fuels 
Reduction Project (USFS 2007b, p. 48), grazing management through the 
Draft Grazing EA (USFS 2007a, p. 108), and the Ranch of the Rockies 
timber sale project (USFS 2007d, pp. 1-3) were not addressed. The 
petitioners believe that multiple, ongoing grazing and fuel reduction 
projects in and around the areas where the Susan's purse-making 
caddisfly is found will continue to impair existing and potential 
spring habitat for this restricted species.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition
    We reviewed portions of the Fuel Reduction EA (USFS 2007b, p. 48) 
and found that the Susan's purse-making caddisfly was not addressed. We 
also reviewed portions of the Draft Grazing EA and found that the 
Susan's purse-making caddisfly was not mentioned (USFS 2007a, p. 108). 
As the Sensitive Species designation points out (USFS 2007e, p. 2), 
grazing cannot be discounted as a threat. Consequently, if the USFS is 
not addressing grazing or other impacts immediately around Trout Creek 
Spring and Trout Creek, or giving greater consideration to actions 
upstream affecting water quality and quantity, we do not believe that 
sensitive species designation constitutes an adequate regulatory 
mechanism to protect the species and its habitat. TNC and Colorado 
State Land Board own a majority of the land around High Creek Fen, 
which helps to protect the fen. However, the petitioners did not

[[Page 32520]]

provide specific land protection information regarding measures that 
either of these entities may be taking to protect the fen.
    Due to lack of evidence of apparent Federal protection, we conclude 
that the petition presents substantial information indicating that 
listing the Susan's purse-making caddisfly may be warranted based on 
inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms. The petition did not provide 
any information regarding State or non-governmental regulatory 
mechanisms, nor do we have any information in our files.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued 
Existence

Small Population Size and Stochastic Events
    The petitioners state that small populations are generally at 
greater risk of extirpation from normal population fluctuations due to 
predation, disease, and changing food supply, as well as from natural 
disasters such as floods or droughts. They also state that loss of 
genetic variability and reduced fitness due to inbreeding may be 
occurring due to limited dispersal ability of the Susan's purse-making 
caddisfly between the two known populations.
Global Climate Change
    The petitioners state that the effects of global climate change are 
being assessed in North America and throughout the world, and changes 
in precipitation patterns, stream hydrology, and bloom time have 
already been noted. They state that stream flows decreased by about 2 
percent per decade across the last century in the central Rocky 
Mountain region (Rood et al. 2005, p. 231).
    The petitioners also reference Field et al.'s (2007, p. 627, 632, 
635) conclusions that the effects of global climate change are 
anticipated to include warming in the western mountains, causing 
snowpack and ice to melt earlier in the season. These changes could 
lead to both increased flooding early in the spring, and drier summer 
conditions, particularly in the arid western areas which rely on 
snowmelt to sustain stream flows. The petitioners point out that spring 
and summer snow cover has already been documented as decreasing in the 
western United States, and drought has become more frequent and intense 
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007, pp. 8, 12). Major 
hydrologic events such as floods and droughts are projected to increase 
in frequency and intensity (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
2007, p. 18). The petitioners state that erosion is also projected to 
increase as the result of a combination of factors, such as decreased 
soil stability from higher temperatures and reduced soil moisture, and 
increases in winds and high intensity storms (Intergovernmental Panel 
on Climate Change 2007, pp. 12, 14, 15, 18).
    The petitioners conclude that projected cumulative effects of 
continuing global climate change, including increased frequency and 
severity of seasonal flooding and droughts, reduced snowpack to feed 
stream flow, increased siltation, and increasing air and water 
temperatures, would seriously impair the Susan's purse-making 
caddisfly's habitat and negatively impact its survival.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition
    Although the limited distribution and presumably small size of the 
two populations of the Susan's purse-making caddisfly could be a 
concern, the petitioners did not provide trend information to indicate 
that the caddisfly or its habitat are being impacted as a result of 
small population size or stochastic events. It is possible that climate 
change could pose a problem to the Susan's purse-making caddisfly if 
water levels, water temperature, or other habitat variables that affect 
the caddisfly change as a result global warming. However, there is 
currently no model that can predict climate change effects at a local 
enough scale to ascertain whether climate change is, or will become, a 
threat to the Susan's purse-making caddisfly. Consequently, we conclude 
that the petition does not present substantial information indicating 
that listing the Susan's purse-making caddisfly may be warranted based 
on other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' continued 
existence.

Finding

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act 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 process for making this 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) 
of the Act is limited to a determination of whether the information in 
the petition presents ``substantial scientific and commercial 
information,'' which is interpreted in our regulations as ``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)). 
As described above, the petition presents substantial information 
indicating that listing the Susan's purse-making caddisfly throughout 
its entire range may be warranted, based on impacts of livestock 
grazing, erosion and sedimentation from logging roads, and 
sedimentation from prescribed fire activities (Factor A), and the 
inadequacy of Federal regulatory mechanisms (Factor D). Based on our 
evaluation (above), the petition does not present substantial 
information indicating that Factors B, C, and E are a threat to this 
species. However, we are seeking information from the public that may 
be relevant to these and the other listing factors.
    Based on this review and evaluation, we find that the petition 
presents substantial scientific or commercial information that listing 
the Susan's purse-making caddisfly throughout all or a portion of its 
range may be warranted due to current and future threats under Factors 
A and D. Therefore, we are initiating a status review to determine 
whether listing the Susan's purse-making caddisfly under the Act is 
warranted.
    The ``substantial information'' standard for a 90-day finding is 
not the same as the Act's ``best scientific and commercial data'' 
standard that applies to a 12-month finding to determine whether a 
petitioned action is warranted. A 90-day finding is not a status 
assessment of the species and does not constitute a status review under 
the Act. Our final determination of whether a petitioned action is 
warranted is not made until we have completed a thorough status review 
of the species as part of the 12-month finding on a petition, which is 
conducted following a positive 90-day finding. Because the Act's 
standards for 90-day and 12-month findings are different, as described 
above, a positive 90-day finding does not mean that the 12-month 
finding also will be positive.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at 
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Western Colorado 
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

[[Page 32521]]

Authors

    The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the 
Western Colorado Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: June 25, 2009.
Marvin E. Moriarty,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
[FR Doc. E9-16080 Filed 7-7- 09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S