32514 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 pursemaking 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: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Search for docket 

FWS-R6-ES-2009-0025 and follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• 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 pursemaking 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 freeliving 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 pursemaking 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 pursemaking 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 pursemaking 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 

oCelsius (oC)) (57.9 to 60.4 oFarenheit 

(oF)). 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 (SO4), 

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, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

32516 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 pursemaking 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 Stateowned 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 pursemstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32517 

making caddisfly requires cold, fastrunning, 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 pursemaking 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

32518 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(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 pursemaking 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 pursemaking 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 pursemaking 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 pursemaking 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 pursemaking 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 pursemaking 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

32520 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 pursemaking 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). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 300 

[Docket No. 090130102–91070–01] 

RIN 0648–AX59 

International Fisheries; Western and 

Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly 

Migratory Species; Bigeye Tuna Catch 

Limits in Longline Fisheries in 2009, 

2010, and 2011 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations 

under authority of the Western and 

Central Pacific Fisheries Convention 

Implementation Act (WCPFC 

Implementation Act) to establish a catch 

limit for bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) 

in the U.S. pelagic longline fisheries in 

the western and central Pacific Ocean 

for each of the years 2009, 2010, and 

2011. Once the limit of 3,763 metric 

tons (mt) is reached in any of those 

years, retaining, transshipping, or 

landing bigeye tuna caught in the 

western and central Pacific Ocean 

would be prohibited for the remainder 

of the year, with certain exceptions. The 

limit would not apply to the longline 

fisheries of American Samoa, Guam, or 

the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands (CNMI). This action is 

necessary for the United States to satisfy 

its international obligations under the 

Convention on the Conservation and 

Management of Highly Migratory Fish 

Stocks in the Western and Central 

Pacific Ocean (Convention), to which it 

is a Contracting Party. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted in 

writing by August 7, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this proposed rule, identified by 

0648–AX59, and the regulatory impact 

review (RIR) prepared for the proposed 

rule by any of the following methods: 

• Electronic submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking portal, at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Mail: William L. Robinson, 

Regional Administrator, NMFS Pacific 

Islands Regional Office (PIRO), 1601 

Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, 

HI 96814. Include the identifier ‘‘0648– 

AX59’’ in the comments. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are part of the public record and 

generally will be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All personal identifying information (for 

example, name and address) voluntarily 

submitted by the commenter may be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

confidential business information or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments (if submitting 

comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking 

portal, enter ‘‘N/A’’ in the relevant 

required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. 

An initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) prepared under the 

authority of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (RFA) is included in the 

Classification section of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this proposed rule. 

Copies of the RIR and copies of the 

environmental assessment (EA) 

prepared under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act are 

available at http://www.fpir.noaa.gov/ 

IFD/ifdldocumentsldata.html or may 

be obtained from William L. Robinson, 

Regional Administrator, NMFS PIRO 

(see ADDRESSES). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom 

Graham, NMFS PIRO, 808–944–2219. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access 

This proposed rule is also accessible 

at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr. 

Background on the Convention and the 

WCPFC 

The Convention entered into force in 

June 2004. The full text of the 

Convention is available at: http:// 

www.wcpfc.int/convention.htm. The 

area of application of the Convention, or 

the Convention Area, comprises the 

majority of the western and central 

Pacific Ocean (WCPO). In the North 

Pacific Ocean the eastern boundary of 

the Convention Area is at 150° W. long. 

A map showing the boundaries of the 

Convention Area is available at: http:// 

www.wcpfc.int/pdf/Map.pdf. The 

Convention focuses on the conservation 

and management of highly migratory 

species (HMS) and the management of 

fisheries for HMS, and has provisions 

related to non-target, associated, and 

dependent species in such fisheries. 

The Western and Central Pacific 

Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), 

established under the Convention, is 

comprised of the Members, including 

Contracting Parties to the Convention 

and fishing entities that have agreed to 

be bound by the regime established by 

the Convention. Other entities that 

participate in the WCPFC include 

Participating Territories and 

Cooperating Non-Members. 

Participating Territories participate with 

the authorization of the Contracting 

Parties with responsibility for the 

conduct of their foreign affairs. 

Cooperating Non-Members are 

identified by the WCPFC on a yearly 

basis. In accepting Cooperating NonMember status, such States agree to 

implement the decisions of the WCPFC 

in the same manner as Members. 

The current Members of the WCPFC 

are Australia, Canada, China, Chinese 

Taipei (Taiwan), Cook Islands, 

European Community, Federated States 

of Micronesia, Fiji, France, Japan, 

Kiribati, Korea, Marshall Islands, Nauru, 

New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New 

Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Solomon 

Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, United States, 

and Vanuatu. The current Participating 

Territories are French Polynesia, New 

Caledonia and Wallis and Futuna 

(affiliated with France); Tokelau 

(affiliated with New Zealand); and 

American Samoa, the CNMI and Guam 

(affiliated with the United States). The 

Cooperating Non-Members for 2009 are 

Belize, El Salvador, Indonesia, Mexico, 

and Senegal. 

International Obligations of the United 

States under the Convention 

The United States ratified the 

Convention in 2007 and in doing so 

became a Contracting Party to the 

Convention and a Member of the 

WCPFC. From 2004 until that time, the 

United States participated in the 

WCPFC as a Cooperating Non-Member. 

As a Contracting Party to the 

Convention and a Member of the 

WCPFC, the United States is obligated 

to implement the decisions of the 

WCPFC in a legally binding manner. 

The WCPFC Implementation Act (16 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS