[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 91 (Thursday, May 10, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27386-27403]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11229]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2011-0019: 4500030113]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition To List the Arapahoe Snowfly as Threatened or Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list the Arapahoe snowfly (Capnia
arapahoe) as endangered and to designate critical habitat under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After review of the
best available scientific and commercial information, we find that
listing the Arapahoe snowfly as threatened or endangered is warranted.
Currently, however, listing the Arapahoe snowfly is precluded by higher
priority actions to amend the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication of this 12-month petition
finding, we will add the Arapahoe snowfly to our candidate species
list. We will develop a proposed rule to list the Arapahoe snowfly as
our priorities allow. We will make any determination on critical
habitat during development of the proposed listing rule. In any interim
period, we will address the status of the candidate taxon through our
annual Candidate Notice of Review.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on May 10, 2012.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R6-ES-2011-0019. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Field Office, 134 Union Blvd.,
Suite 670, Lakewood, CO 80228. Please submit any new information,
materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding to the above
street address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Linner, Field Supervisor,
Colorado Field Office (see ADDRESSES); by telephone at 303-236-4773, or
by facsimile at 303-236-4005. If you use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires
that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Threatened and
Endangered Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or
commercial information that listing a species may be warranted, we make
a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition. In
this finding, we will determine that the petitioned action is: (1) Not
warranted, (2) warranted, or (3) warranted, but the immediate proposal
of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by
other pending proposals to determine whether species are endangered or
threatened, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove
qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we
treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be
warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such
finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12
months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal
Register.
Previous Federal Actions
On July 30, 2007, we received a petition from Forest Guardians (now
WildEarth Guardians), requesting that the Service consider for listing
as either endangered or threatened 206 species in our Mountain-Prairie
Region ranked as G1 or G1G2 by the organization NatureServe (except
those that are currently listed, proposed for listing, or candidates
for listing). The Arapahoe snowfly was 1 of the 206 species included in
the petition. On March 19, 2008, WildEarth Guardians filed a complaint
indicating that the Service failed to make a preliminary 90-day finding
on their two multiple-species petitions--one for mountain-prairie
species, and one for southwestern species. We subsequently published
two 90-day findings, including one on February 5, 2009 (74 FR 6122) for
the mountain-prairie species. That finding concluded that the petition
did not present substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that listing may be warranted for 165 of the 206 species,
including the Arapahoe snowfly.
On April 6, 2010, we received a petition, of the same date, from
The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Dr. Boris
Kondratieff, Save the Poudre: Poudre Waterkeeper,
[[Page 27387]]
Cache la Poudre River Foundation, WildEarth Guardians, and Center for
Native Ecosystems, requesting that the Arapahoe snowfly be listed as
endangered and that critical habitat be designated under the Act.
Supporting information regarding the species' taxonomy and ecology,
population distribution and status, and actual and potential causes of
decline was included in the petition. We acknowledged the receipt of
the petition in a letter to Scott Hoffman Black and the other
petitioners dated April 13, 2010. In that letter, we stated that
issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the species under
section 4(b)(7) of the Act was not warranted. We also stated that, due
to previously received petitions, court orders, other listing actions
with statutory deadlines, and judicially approved settlement agreements
that would take the remainder of Fiscal Year 2010 to complete, we
anticipated responding to the petition in Fiscal Year 2011. On December
1, 2010 the petitioners filed a Notice of Intent to sue regarding our
failure to complete a 90-day finding concerning their April 6, 2010,
petition to list the Arapahoe snowfly.
On April 26, 2011, we published a 90-day finding for the Arapahoe
snowfly (76 FR 23256). In that finding, we found that the petition
presented substantial information to indicate that listing the species
may be warranted. On June 27, 2011, we received a Notice of Intent to
sue from Mile High Law Office for not completing a 12-month finding on
the April 6, 2010, petition to list the species. This Notice of Intent
to sue was submitted on behalf of WildEarth Guardians, Save the Poudre:
Poudre Waterkeeper, Center for Native Ecosystems, and Colorado State
University. On September 9, 2011, a settlement agreement with WildEarth
Guardians was approved in U.S. District Court that included a multiyear
listing workplan for several species, including a commitment to
complete a 12-month finding for the Arapahoe snowfly in Fiscal Year
2012. This notice constitutes the 12-month finding on the April 6,
2010, petition to list the Arapahoe snowfly as endangered and fulfills
our commitment for the Arapahoe snowfly under the September 9, 2011,
settlement agreement.
Species Information
Taxonomy
The Arapahoe snowfly is an insect in the order Plecoptera
(stonefly), the family Capniidae (small winter stonefly), and the genus
Capnia (snowfly) (NatureServe 2009, p. 1; Integrated Taxonomic
Information System 2010, p. 1). In North America, there are 674 known
species of stoneflies, including 56 species of Capnia (Stark et al.
2009, pp. 3-4). The nearest relatives of the Arapahoe snowfly are the
Utah snowfly (C. utahensis) and the Sequoia snowfly (C. sequoia), both
of which are a minimum of 400 miles (mi) (640 kilometers (km)) from the
known locality for Arapahoe snowfly (Nelson and Kondratieff 1988, p.
79). The Arapahoe snowfly was first discovered in 1986 and identified
as a new species in 1988 (Nelson and Kondratieff 1988, p. 77). The
scientific community accepts the current taxonomic status of the
Arapahoe snowfly (Nelson and Kondratieff 1988, p. 77; Nelson and
Baumann 1989, p. 314; Stark et al. 2009, p. 3; Integrated Taxonomic
Information System 2010, p. 1). Consequently, we conclude that the
Arapahoe snowfly is a valid species and, therefore, a listable entity
under section 3(16) of the Act.
Species Description
Stoneflies are distinguished by the ability to fold their two pairs
of wings back along the abdomen; however, none fly well (Williams and
Feltmate 1992, pp. 33 and 35). Most stoneflies are inconspicuous
insects that fly clumsily (Hynes 1976, p. 135). Species of Capnia are
typically distinguished from other genera by physical characteristics
of the epiproct (a projection at the end of the abdomen) (Nelson and
Baumann 1989, p. 312). The Arapahoe snowfly adult is dark colored and
has a body length of approximately 0.2 inches (in.) (5 millimeters
(mm)) and a wing length of also approximately 0.2 in. (5 mm) (Nelson
and Kondratieff 1988, p. 77). The immature (nymph) stage has not been
described.
Habitat
The Arapahoe snowfly has been documented only in two streams: Young
Gulch and Elkhorn Creek in Colorado (Nelson and Kondratieff 1988, p.
77). Both streams are small tributaries of the Cache la Poudre River
and are typical of streams in the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains of
Colorado in that they are characterized by intermittent flow and a
substrate of pebble, cobble, and bedrock (Nelson and Kondratieff 1988,
p. 79). Upper reaches of both streams are typified by steep slopes with
ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) (Nelson and Kondratieff 1988, p. 79).
Lower reaches near the confluences with the Cache la Poudre River,
where the species has been collected, have gentler slopes, with
cottonwood (Populus angustifolia), willow (Salix spp.), Rocky Mountain
maple (Acer glabrum), chokecherry (Padus virginiana), and alder (Alnus
incana) trees along the stream margins (Colorado State University 2010,
p. 1). Elevations at collection sites are 5,800 feet (ft) (1,768 meters
(m)) at Young Gulch and 6,600 ft (2,010 m) at Elkhorn Creek (Nelson and
Kondratieff 1988, p. 77). Both stream reaches with records of Arapahoe
snowfly are within the Canyon Lakes Ranger District of the Roosevelt
National Forest and managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). There
also are some private land holdings in upstream reaches of both
drainages.
Stoneflies are primarily associated with clean, cool, running
waters (Surdick and Gaufin 1978, p. 3; Brittain 1990, p. 1; Williams
and Feltmate 1992, p. 35; Palma and Figueroa 2008, p. 81; Stewart and
Stark 2008, p. 311). Water temperature is a major influence on stonefly
growth and development (Brittain 1983, p. 445). Stonefly nymphs tend to
have specific water temperature, substrate type, and stream size
requirements that are reflected in their distribution along stream
courses and the timing of their emergence in the spring (Stewart and
Stark 2008, p. 311). Their restriction to cool, clean habitats with
considerable water movement, all of which contribute to high dissolved
oxygen concentrations, is thought to be connected to high dissolved
oxygen requirements of the nymphs (Williams and Feltmate 1992, p. 39;
Heinold 2010, p. 17). Winter stonefly nymphs undergo diapause
(dormancy) in the hyporheic zone-an active interface between the
surface stream and groundwater with exchanges of water, nutrients, and
dissolved oxygen (Boulton et al. 1998, p. 59; Hancock 2002, p. 763).
The hyporheic zone is vulnerable to changes in the quality and quantity
of both surface water and groundwater (Hancock 2002, p. 763). Exchange
between surface water and groundwater may be the most important
regulator of biological activity in the hyporheic zone; without flow to
renew nutrients and oxygen and flush wastes, the sediments become
unsuitable habitat (Hancock 2002, p. 764). Human activities that can
impact the hyporheic zone include water diversions, sedimentation from
roads and trails, wastewater inputs, and livestock grazing (Hancock
2002, p. 765).
The species of aquatic macroinvertebrates present in a watershed
are an important indicator of the long-term health of that watershed
(Fleming 1999, pp. 93-94; DeWalt et al. 2005, p. 942). Stoneflies are
considered the order of insects most sensitive to habitat alteration,
pollution, and siltation, and are the best insect
[[Page 27388]]
indicators of aquatic environmental quality (Baumann 1979, p. 241;
Rosenberg and Resh 1993, p. 354; Fleming 1999, p. 94; Heinold 2010, p.
18). With increased stream disturbances, the number of stonefly taxa
has been shown to decrease (Barbour et al. 1999, pp. 7.15-7.16).
Fleming (1999, p. 94) developed a tolerance index for aquatic
macroinvertebrates from 1 to 10, with 10 being most tolerant.
Stoneflies were the least tolerant to stream perturbation, with a
tolerance index ranging from 1.7 to 4.4 for the various families
(Fleming 1999, p. 94). The family of small winter stoneflies, of which
the Arapahoe snowfly is a member, was in the mid-range, with a
tolerance index of 3.0 (Fleming 1999, p. 94).
We are not aware of any surface water quality data for Young Gulch,
and there is minimal data for Elkhorn Creek. After work on this finding
was initiated, the Service and the USFS undertook a cooperative effort
to collect field data for both streams. However, Young Gulch was dry at
the time of sampling (December 8, 2011). Consequently, data was only
collected for Elkhorn Creek. Sampling was just above the confluence of
the creek with the Cache la Poudre River. The winter season and the
need for a short turn-around time on laboratory results in order to
meet publication deadlines for the 12-month finding limited the amount
of data collected. However, from what we know of winter stoneflies, the
parameters shown in Table 1 appear adequate to support the species
during early winter. These data are described in the following table
(Sanchez 2011a, p. 2; 2011b, pp. 2, 14).
Table 1--Water Quality Data Collected From Elkhorn Creek (December 8, 2011)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter Measurement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water temperature................... 32.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C).
Conductivity........................ 150.9 microsiemens per centimeter ([micro]s/cm).
pH.................................. 6.46.
Dissolved oxygen.................... 11.18 milligrams per liter (mg/L) (>90%).
Total inorganic nitrogen............ <0.21 mg/L.
Ammonium............................ <0.10 mg/L.
Total suspended solids.............. <5 mg/L.
Total dissolved solids.............. 88-96 mg/L.
Total coliform...................... present.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A study that included the Cache la Poudre River tested for the
presence of 271 compounds, including volatile organic compounds,
pesticides, wastewater compounds, and Escherichia coli (Collins and
Sprague 2005, p. 1). Most (257) of these compounds were not detected in
the river, and all concentrations detected were less than established
water quality standards (Collins and Sprague 2005, p. 1). The river is
considered generally pristine (Medley and Clements 1998, p. 632; George
Weber Environmental, Inc. 2007, p. 7). Based upon what is known
regarding habitat requirements of the Arapahoe snowfly, the mainstem of
the Cache la Poudre River is not likely to be habitat for the species
due to the fact that known and historical occurrences were both found
in small, intermittent streams.
Life History
Few studies have been conducted on the Arapahoe snowfly due to its
rarity and relatively recent discovery. Sampling for adult specimens is
limited to late winter/early spring when adults are present above
ground. Snowflies generally cannot be identified at the species level
during most of their life history stages, including the nymph stage.
The difficulties in distinguishing among species of snowfly nymphs and
sampling under ice in winter have largely precluded the study of
individual species (Stewart and Stark 2002, p. 122). Detailed life
histories are well known for less than 5 percent of stonefly species
(Stewart and Stark 2002, p. 23). Therefore, most of the information
below comes from knowledge about stoneflies (order Plecoptera) in
general, other members of the small winter stonefly family, and other
species of the genus Capnia. We expect that the life history of the
Arapahoe snowfly would be similar to these closely related species.
Stoneflies have a complex lifecycle that requires terrestrial
habitat during the adult phase and aquatic habitat during the nymph
phase (Lillehammer et al. 1989, p. 183; Williams and Feltmate 1992, p.
33). Having both a terrestrial and aquatic phase creates dependence on
two different environments (Brittain 1990, p. 1). The majority of the
stonefly life cycle is spent as a developing nymph in the aquatic
environment, while their brief terrestrial adult stage of 3 to 4 weeks
is primarily focused on reproduction (Brittain 1990, p. 1; Williams and
Feltmate 1992, p. 33). Winter stoneflies have a univoltine (1-year)
life cycle (Hynes 1976, pp. 146-147).
As water levels fall through late winter, adult winter stoneflies
emerge from the space that forms under stream ice and crawl onto the
snow or nearby vegetation (Hynes 1976, pp. 135-36). Winter streamflow
is essential for successful egg deposition (Jacobi and Cary 1996, p.
696). Water temperature also is important, with emergence occurring
earlier in warmer years (Hynes 1976, p. 137). Arapahoe snowfly adults
have been collected only in late March and early April (Mazzacano
undated, p. 2). After emergence, winter stonefly males drum (beat their
abdomen on the ground or on vegetation) to search for mates, with a
frequency that is species and sex specific (Hynes 1976, p. 139).
Unmated females reply, the males approach and drum again, and the
process repeats until they meet and mate (Hynes 1976, p. 139). Mating
occurs on the ground or on vegetation adjacent to the aquatic habitat
(Brittain 1990, p. 1). Females release eggs over the surface of the
flowing stream, and the eggs attach to the cobble and gravel in the
stream substrate (Stewart and Stark 2008, p. 311).
Most stoneflies lay 100 to 2,000 eggs (Brittain 1990, p. 4). Winter
stonefly eggs hatch within 3 to 4 weeks (Stewart and Stark 2008, p.
312). Hatching success is high within a water temperature range of 41
to 59 [deg]F (5 to 15 [deg]C) (Brittain 1990, p. 5). Most stoneflies
show rapidly decreasing hatching success over 68 [deg]F (20 [deg]C)
(Brittain 1990, p. 5). As water temperatures rise, nymphs burrow into
the streambed and undergo summer diapause (Harper and Hynes 1970, pp.
925-926; Williams and Feltmate 1992, p. 39; Stewart and Stark 2002, p.
34; Mazzacano undated, p. 2). This behavior enables winter stoneflies
to inhabit streams that may reach unsuitably high
[[Page 27389]]
temperatures or dry up during the summer (Harper and Hynes 1970, pp.
925-926; Stewart and Stark 2002, p. 34). Diapause also may be a
mechanism for synchronizing the timing of feeding with leaf drop in the
fall (Stewart and Stark 2002, p. 35). As water temperatures drop in the
fall, nymphs emerge from the hyporheic zone into the stream water and
become more active. Most winter stonefly nymphs are shredders (feeding
on organic detritus such as falling leaves that is deposited into
streams), and active nymphs are usually found in leafy or woody stream
debris (Short and Ward 1981, p. 341; Mazzacano undated, p. 2; Stewart
and Stark 2008, p. 379).
Stoneflies have limited dispersal capability (Brittain 1990, pp. 2
and 10). This lack of mobility prevents them from crossing even small
ecological barriers and has led to a high degree of local speciation
(Hynes 1976, p. 135). A study in the United Kingdom that collected more
than 22,500 adult stoneflies of 15 different species found that half of
all stoneflies were taken within 59 ft (18 m) of the stream channel,
and 90 percent traveled less than 197 ft (60 m) (Petersen et al. 2004,
pp. 934, 938, and 942). Most studies also suggest a low tendency of in-
stream drift for stonefly nymphs (Stewart and Szczytko 1983, p. 117).
Historical Distribution
Many snowflies are endemic species, with a narrow range limited to
a small geographical or ecological area (Nebeker and Gaufin 1967, p.
416; Nelson and Baumann 1989, p. 292; Nelson 2008, pp. 178-179;
Kondratieff and Baumann 2002, p. 399). Similarly, the Arapahoe snowfly
appears to have a highly restricted distribution. It is historically
known from only two small tributaries of the Cache la Poudre River in
northern Colorado--Young Gulch and Elkhorn Creek (Nelson and
Kondratieff 1988, p. 77; Heinold and Kondratieff 2010, p. 282). Habitat
where the species has been collected extends from the confluences with
the river to approximately 1,640 ft (500 m) upstream for both streams
(Heinold 2011a, unpaginated). Searches further upstream have failed to
locate the species (Heinold 2011a, unpaginated). Approximately 5 mi (8
km) separates these two streams. The species was first discovered in
March 1986 in Young Gulch, but, despite repeated searches during most
of the past 25 years, it has not been found again in that locale
(Nelson and Kondratieff 1988, p. 77; Heinold 2011b and 2011c,
unpaginated). In April 1987, the species was first located in Elkhorn
Creek and has been found in subsequent searches in this stream (Nelson
and Kondratieff 1988, p. 77). Repeated searches (at least 17 searches
in the past 16 years) also have been conducted in 11 additional nearby
waterways with similar ecological characteristics; however, the species
has not been located in any of these streams (Heinold 2011b,
unpaginated). Thus, the species is currently known from just one extant
location and we consider it to be extirpated from Young Gulch.
Since the species was collected in Young Gulch only on one
occasion, we do not know if there was actually a historical population
there, what the size of that population was, or why it was extirpated.
However, Young Gulch has several characteristics that may make it less
desirable than Elkhorn Creek as Arapahoe snowfly habitat. Young Gulch
is a shorter stream, which originates at a lower elevation (7,500 ft
(2,290 m)) than Elkhorn Creek (10,000 ft (3,050 m)). Thus, any
accumulated snowfall in the upper reaches of the drainage will melt
sooner and more quickly, which in turn would result in the drying of
the stream earlier in the year than Elkhorn Creek. There is no minimum
flow water right on Young Gulch, as there is on Elkhorn Creek (Colorado
Water Conservation Board (CWCB) and Colorado Division of Water
Resources (CDWR) 2011, unpaginated). As noted above, when water samples
were collected from Elkhorn Creek in Arapahoe snowfly habitat on
December 8, 2011, Young Gulch was dry.
The other major difference between the two streams is the amount of
recreational use. Young Gulch has a well-developed trailhead off of
Highway 14 that, according to the USFS, experiences heavy, year-round
usage, including hikers, bikers, backpackers, and horseback riders
(USFS 2011c, pp. 1, 2). The 4.5-mi (7.2-km) trail follows Young Gulch
and includes approximately 45 stream crossings (Casamassa 2011, p. 4).
Aquatic macroinvertebrate species present at a given stream site are
related to the number of stream crossings above that site, with the
total number of larval species (including stoneflies) negatively
related to the number of stream crossings (Gucinski et al. 2001, p.
26). The amount of usage and the number of stream crossings likely
contribute to a high sediment load, which may have factored into the
extirpation of the species at this location.
Current Distribution, Abundance, and Trends
The species is known from 1 male specimen collected in 1986 in
Young Gulch, 1 male in 1987, 10 males and 2 females in 2009, and 1 male
in 2011, all in Elkhorn Creek (Heinold and Kondratieff 2010, p. 281;
Heinold 2011d, unpaginated). We consider Elkhorn Creek to be the only
currently occupied habitat. During a search of Elkhorn Creek on March
17, 2009, approximately 500 specimens of 4 species in the genus Capnia
were collected, but only 5 of those specimens were Arapahoe snowfly
(Heinold 2011a, unpaginated). We consider this low degree of detection
to indicate rarity of the Arapahoe snowfly at the only known remaining
location for the species.
Given the low numbers of individuals that have been collected over
the years, we have no information available regarding population trends
for the Arapahoe snowfly. However, we consider it extirpated from one
of the two streams where it was historically known to occur. It appears
to currently have an extremely narrow distribution near the confluence
of one small stream, and it is rare within its only known occupied
habitat.
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations
(50 CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing
species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of
the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or threatened
based on any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In making this finding, information pertaining to the Arapahoe
snowfly in relation to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of
the Act is discussed below. In considering what factors might
constitute threats to a species, we must look beyond the exposure of
the species to a particular factor to evaluate whether the species may
respond to that factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the
species. If there is exposure to a factor and the species responds
negatively, the factor may be a threat and, during the status review,
we attempt to determine how significant a threat it is. The threat is
significant if
[[Page 27390]]
it drives, or contributes to, the risk of extinction of the species
such that the species warrants listing as endangered or threatened as
those terms are defined in the Act. However, the identification of
factors that could impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to
compel a finding that the species warrants listing. The information
must include evidence sufficient to suggest that these factors are
operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species
may meet the definition of endangered or threatened under the Act.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Under this factor we evaluate climate change, recreation,
development, forest management, and grazing.
Climate Change
Our analyses under the Endangered Species Act include consideration
of ongoing and projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and
``climate change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). ``Climate'' refers to the mean and variability
of different types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being
a typical period for such measurements, although shorter or longer
periods also may be used (IPCC 2007, p. 78). The term ``climate
change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or
more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that
persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether
the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC
2007, p. 78). Various types of changes in climate can have direct or
indirect effects on species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or
negative and they may change over time, depending on the species and
other relevant considerations, such as the effects of interactions of
climate with other variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007,
pp. 8-14, 18-19). In our analyses, we use our expert judgment to weigh
relevant information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of
various aspects of climate change.
Stream Effects
The western United States is being affected by climate change more
than any other part of the United States outside of Alaska (Saunders et
al. 2008, p. iv). The hydrological cycle of the western United States
changed significantly over the second half of the 20th century (Barnett
et al. 2008, p. 1080). Numerous studies show more winter precipitation
falling as rain instead of snow, earlier snowmelt, and associated
changes in river flow (Barnett et al. 2008, p. 1080). Between 1978 and
2004, the spring pulse (onset of streamflow from melting snow) in
Colorado shifted earlier by 2 weeks (Ray et al. 2008, p. 2). Although
there is no identified decrease in runoff to date, average annual
runoff is projected to decrease significantly for the South Platte
River basin (which includes Elkhorn Creek) over the next 50 to 60 years
(U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) 2011, p. 94). A decline of 8 percent
is projected by the 2020s, 14 percent by the 2050s, and 17 percent by
the 2070s, due primarily to increased temperatures and little projected
change in precipitation (BOR 2011, p. 94).
A precipitous decline in lower elevation snowpack below 8,200 ft
(2,500 m) elevation is predicted to occur across the western United
States by the middle of the 21st century, and modest declines of 10 to
20 percent are projected to occur in snowpack above 8,200 ft (2,500 m)
elevation (Regonda et al. 2005, p. 376; Ray et al. 2008, p. 1). The
headwaters of Elkhorn Creek approach 10,000 ft (3,050 m) elevation,
indicating that Elkhorn Creek may begin to experience some effects from
reduced snowpack within the next 50 years.
A local habitat that depends on snowmelt to maintain a sufficient
quantity of in-stream flows is likely to be sensitive to projected
reductions in average snowpack, as well as to changes in the timing and
intensity of precipitation (Glick et al. 2011, p. 20). Species that
breed in intermittent streams are likely to be highly susceptible to
climate impacts from changes such as rising temperature regimes; winter
precipitation arriving more frequently as rain than snow; and shifts in
the timing of snowmelt, runoff, and peak stream flows (Glick et al.
2011, p. 41). Species that are poor dispersers also may be more
susceptible as they will be less able to move from areas where the
effects of climate change render those areas unsuitable and into areas
that become newly suitable (Glick et al. 2011, p. 49). The Arapahoe
snowfly is found in a localized habitat, breeds in an intermittent
stream, and is considered a poor disperser. Consequently, it may be
particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change.
Temperature has critical effects on aquatic macroinvertebrates
through its combined influences on dissolved oxygen and metabolic
activity (Durance and Ormerod 2007, p. 943). The stonefly's restriction
to cool, clean habitats with considerable water movement is thought to
be connected to high dissolved oxygen requirements of the nymphs
(Williams and Feltmate 1992, p. 39; Heinold 2010, p. 17). Stoneflies'
adaptation to cold environments places them at a competitive
disadvantage in warmer climates (Brittain 1990, p. 9; Haiderkker and
Hering 2007, p. 473). A study in the United Kingdom found that spring
macroinvertebrate abundance declined by an average rate of 21 percent
across all species for every 1.8 [deg]F (1 [deg]C) rise in stream
temperature in circumneutral (pH near neutral) streams (Durance and
Ormerod 2007, p. 942). Sixteen species of stoneflies were among the 84
macroinvertebrate species noted in these streams (Durance and Ormerod
2007, p. 951). Air temperatures in the northern Front Range of Colorado
increased 2.5 [deg]F (1.4 [deg]C) in the period 1977-2006 (Ray et al.
2008, p. 10). Stream temperatures also are expected to increase as the
climate warms (Ray et al. 2008, p. 41).
In a study conducted over a 25-year period in the United Kingdom,
scarcer taxa of macroinvertebrates disappeared in circumneutral (pH
near 7) streams that showed progressive temperature increases (Durance
and Ormerod 2007, p. 943). There is limited pH data specific to Elkhorn
Creek. However, in 1973 the USFS recorded a pH of 7.5 in Elkhorn Creek
headwaters and also near the confluence of Elkhorn Creek with the Cache
la Poudre River (USFS 1973, p. 1). More recently, a pH of 6.46 was
recorded in Elkhorn Creek near the confluence with the Cache la Poudre
River (Sanchez 2011, p. 2). These pH values are circumneutral, and
similar to pH values in the study. Thus, currently observed increasing
trends in temperature for Elkhorn Creek might adversely impact the
Arapahoe snowfly.
A laboratory study found that larval growth of one species of
stonefly (Leuctra nigra) increased with increasing water temperature
from 43 to 68 [deg]F (5.9 to 19.8 [deg]C); however, mortality also
increased, resulting in only 7 to 10 percent of individuals completing
their life cycle at the three higher temperatures, compared with 23 to
27 percent at the three lower temperatures (Elliot 1987, p. 181). The
number of eggs laid also decreased at higher temperatures (Elliot 1987,
p. 181). As previously noted, air temperatures in the northern Front
Range of Colorado increased 2.5 [deg]F (1.4 [deg]C) in the period 1977-
2006 and stream temperatures also are expected to increase (Ray et al.
2008, pp. 10 and 41). This suggests that water temperatures in Elkhorn
Creek could increase to levels harmful to sensitive taxa such as the
Arapahoe snowfly.
[[Page 27391]]
Terrestrial Effects
Disturbances such as insect outbreaks and wildfire are likely to
intensify in a warmer future with drier soils and longer growing
seasons (Field et al. 2007, p. 619; Karl et al. 2009, p. 82). Ongoing
outbreaks of mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) in Colorado
are probably caused primarily by climate, specifically drought and high
temperature (Romme et al. 2006, p. 4; Black et al. 2010, p. 1).
Mountain pine beetles typically exist as small populations that feed on
the innermost bark layer of trees that have been weakened by disease or
injury (Black et al. 2010, p. 7). However, they can erupt to epidemic
levels if stand structure and climatic conditions are appropriate and
overcome the defenses of even healthy trees, leading to widespread
mortality of host species (Field et al. 2007, p. 623; Black et al.
2010, p. 7).
Ponderosa pine is the dominant vegetation in the upper watershed of
Elkhorn Creek (Nelson and Kondratieff 1988, p. 79). Mountain pine
beetle infestations are building in ponderosa pine forests along the
Front Range of Colorado, with an outbreak detected in northern Larimer
County (Ciesla 2010, pp. 2, 10, and 34). This outbreak encompasses the
range of the Arapahoe snowfly. Infestations in ponderosa pine along the
Northern Front Range increased by more than 10-fold from 2009 to 2010,
from 22,000 acres (ac) (8,903 hectares (ha)) to 229,000 ac (92,673 ha)
(Ciesla 2011, pp. 6-7). Mountain pine beetle activity is expected to
increase in the Front Range over the next several years (Ciesla 2011,
p. 8). The mountain pine beetle outbreak in northern Colorado could
affect water quantity and quality. As trees die and fall, forest cover
becomes less dense, allowing greater exposure of snowpack to solar
radiation, causing faster, earlier runoff and a resultant potential
increase in soil erosion (Ciesla 2010, p. 17).
Epidemics that kill trees over large areas also provide dead,
desiccated fuels for large wildfires (Field et al. 2007, p. 623). A
warming climate encourages wildfires through a longer summer period
that dries fuels, promoting easier ignition and faster spread (Field et
al. 2007, p. 623). In the last 3 decades, the wildfire season in the
western United States increased by 78 days (Saunders et al. 2008, p.
20). Fire suppression during the 20th century is believed to have
created a high hazard of catastrophic fire in ponderosa pine forests of
the northern Front Range in Colorado (Veblen et al. 2000, p. 1178).
Catastrophic fire can impact aquatic macroinvertebrates. For example,
following fires in Yellowstone National Park in 1988, there was a
change in aquatic macroinvertebrates from shredder and collector
species (such as snowflies) to scraper and filter-feeding species
(Neary et al. 2009, p. 142). Similarly, following the 1996 Dome
wildfire in New Mexico, aquatic macroinvertebrate shredders (including
winter stoneflies) common in pre-fire years were reduced or eliminated,
and had not recovered by 5 years post-fire (Vieira et al. 2004, pp.
1243 and 1251). Taxa with weak dispersal abilities and specialized
feeding requirements (including winter stoneflies) became rare after
the Dome wildfire (Vieira et al. 2004, p. 1256). A wildfire in the
Elkhorn Creek watershed has a similar potential to eliminate rare
macroinvertebrates such as the Arapahoe snowfly.
In conclusion, the effects of climate change will likely modify
Arapahoe snowfly habitat in several ways including: (1) The predicted
significant reduction in snowpack; (2) the present increase in
temperature as well as continued threatened increases in future years;
(3) the present and increasing outbreak of mountain pine beetle in
ponderosa pine; and (4) the threatened increased likelihood of
wildfire. Although available information indicates that climate change
could potentially be modifying the species' habitat at the present
time, we do not have any information that indicates this is currently
threatening the species. However, the impacts from each of these
stressors are reasonably expected to increase into the future, and the
species' limited distribution and life history characteristics make it
extremely vulnerable to the predicted impacts. Therefore, we consider
modification of habitat as a result of climate change to be a threat to
the species.
Recreation
Recreation has been increasing in the northern Front Range as a
result of increasing population growth in Colorado (USFS 2009b, p. 1).
The nearest city is Fort Collins, Colorado, approximately 31 mi (50 km)
from Elkhorn Creek. Fort Collins' population has grown rapidly in
recent years. The 2006 population estimate was 129,467, an 8.7 percent
increase from 2000 (City of Fort Collins 2008b, unpaginated). The 2010
population estimate was 143,986, an 11.2 percent increase from 2006
(City of Fort Collins 2011, unpaginated). Usage of trail systems
throughout the Cache la Poudre River canyon will likely increase as the
population continues to grow.
Specific information on the types of recreational usage for Elkhorn
Creek is not available, but we expect that there would be similar usage
patterns to nearby Young Gulch, where the USFS estimates that
approximately 83 percent of recreational users were day-hikers, 10
percent bicyclists, 4 percent back-packers, and 1 percent horseback
riders (Casamassa 2011, p. 5). Dogs are often allowed off-leash on USFS
trails, including Elkhorn Creek trails (Casamassa 2011, p. 5). Common
environmental impacts associated with trail usage include vegetation
loss, soil compaction, erosion, muddiness, degraded water quality, and
disruption of wildlife (International Mountain Biking Association
(IMBA) 2007, p. 1; Marion and Wimpey 2007, unpaginated). The
environmental degradation caused by hikers and mountain bikers is
similar; both are substantially less than degradation caused by horses
(Marion and Wimpey 2007, unpaginated). Eroded soils that enter streams
increase sedimentation that can impact habitat directly or contribute
to algae blooms that deplete dissolved oxygen (IMBA 2007, p. 8). Even
localized disturbance can harm rare species (Marion and Wimpey 2007,
unpaginated). Since Arapahoe snowfly nymphs require high dissolved
oxygen levels (see Habitat section), algal blooms could indicate
dissolved oxygen levels unsuitable for Arapahoe snowfly habitation.
A new trailhead was completed midway along Elkhorn Creek in 2010
that expanded the parking area and improved trail access (USFS 2009b,
p. 4). Consequently, trail usage is likely to increase along the lower
section of Elkhorn Creek in and near Arapahoe snowfly habitat. There
are several areas along upper sections of Elkhorn Creek where trails
are causing increased run-off and erosion (USFS 2009a, p. 48).
Consequently, the USFS has identified 14 stream crossings for
improvement (Casamassa 2011, p. 3). These trails originate 6 to 7 mi
(10 to 11 km) upstream from where the Arapahoe snowfly has been found
and progress further upstream, away from known Arapahoe snowfly
habitat. We have no information at this time to indicate that
sedimentation from these trails is impacting downstream Arapahoe
snowfly habitat. Therefore, at present, we do not consider recreational
use within the Elkhorn Creek watershed to be a threat to the species.
Development
The number of species of stoneflies as well as the percentage of
stoneflies compared with all insect species
[[Page 27392]]
decreases with increasing stream perturbations (Barbour et al. 1999,
pp. 7.15-7.16). Roads, water diversions, and wastewater inputs are the
primary development activities occurring in the Elkhorn Creek
watershed.
Roads
Road construction and use can result in large increases in
suspended sediments, with potentially detrimental effects on water
quality and aquatic macroinvertebrates (Anderson and Potts 1987, p.
681; Gucinski et al. 2001, p. vii; Grace 2002, p. 13; Angermeir et al.
2004, p. 19). A number of studies have demonstrated declines in
invertebrate densities and biomass following sedimentation events by
directly affecting aspects of their physiology or by altering their
habitat (Anderson 1996, p. 8). Arapahoe snowfly nymphs inhabit the
hyporheic zone in spaces between and beneath large substrate particles
such as pebbles and cobbles. Sediment can clog these spaces, cementing
the stream bottom, inhibiting the flow of dissolved oxygen, and making
the habitat unsuitable for macroinvertebrate species such as stoneflies
(Furniss et al. 1991, p. 302; Waters 1995, p. 65; Anderson 1996, pp. 6
and 8; Grace 2002, pp. 24-25). The aquatic macroinvertebrate species
present at a given stream site are inversely related to the number of
stream crossings above that site, with the total number of larval
species (including stoneflies) decreasing with an increasing number of
stream crossings (Gucinski et al. 2001, p. 26).
There are several areas along Elkhorn Creek where roads are causing
increased run-off and erosion into the stream; consequently, the USFS
rates the watershed as Class II or ``at risk'' (exhibiting moderate
integrity relative to its potential condition and at risk of being able
to support its beneficial uses) (USFS 2009a, p. 48). Unpaved roads
create compacted, bare areas that increase runoff and erosion (USFS
2009a, p. 48). In addition, some road segments near Elkhorn Creek are
steep and severely eroded (USFS 2009a, p. 48). Road density in the area
averages 3.5 mi of roads per square mi (2.2 km per square km); a road
density of 3.7 mi per square mi (2.3 km per square km) is considered
high (USFS 2009a, p. A-1). Unpaved roads and jeep trails cross the
Elkhorn Creek watershed approximately 20 times, according to
topographic maps. One additional road crossing is by a paved road.
Unpaved roads, constructed of native materials (such as gravel and
sand), are more erosion prone than paved roads. All unpaved road
crossings are upstream from Arapahoe snowfly habitat. The closest
stream crossing by an unpaved road is approximately 5 to 6 mi (8 to 10
km) upstream of known occupied habitat for the species. Given the
distance of the unpaved road crossings from the species' habitat, the
sediment may be settling out before reaching occupied habitat.
Additionally, during the winter, there is likely less traffic and the
ground is frozen, both of which may result in less sediment erosion. We
cannot identify any impacts to the species from the available water
quality information.
Road salts are a common pollutant in regions with snowy winters and
can enter air, soil, groundwater, and surface water from runoff,
surface soils, or wind-borne spray (Center for Environmental Excellence
2009, p. 3; Silver et al. 2009, p. 942). Stoneflies are very sensitive
to water salinity, with adverse effects apparent at low salinities
(Hart et al. 1991, p. 136). However, the Colorado Department of
Transportation concluded that magnesium chloride (the road salt used in
Colorado Mountains) is highly unlikely to cause environmental damage at
distances greater than 59 ft (18 m) from a roadway (Lewis 1999, p. vii;
Center for Environmental Excellence 2009, p. 4). Highway 14 crosses
Elkhorn Creek at its confluence with the Cache la Poudre River. Habitat
for the Arapahoe snowfly extends from the confluence with the river to
approximately 1,640 ft (500 m) upstream (Heinold 2011a, unpaginated).
Therefore, based on the Colorado Department of Transportation's
conclusion, approximately 3.6 percent of potential habitat may be
impacted by the use of road salt. Sampling on December 8, 2011, within
this 1,640-ft (500-m) reach in Elkhorn Creek detected very low salinity
levels (Sanchez 2001b, p. 2). Based upon the small percentage of stream
habitat that could potentially be impacted and the low salinity levels
detected during the one sampling event, we do not consider the use of
road salt to be a threat to the Arapahoe snowfly.
In conclusion, roads are contributing to an unacceptable sediment
load resulting in the Elkhorn watershed being rated as Class II or ``at
risk.'' However, these roads are a minimum of 5 mi (8 km) upstream of
the species' occupied habitat, and we have limited downstream water
quality information in the vicinity of Arapahoe snowfly habitat to
confirm or refute impacts. We believe that use of road salts causes
minimal impact to the species' habitat. Therefore, at present, we do
not consider roads to be a threat to the species.
Water Diversions
Elkhorn Creek and 2 of its tributaries contain 35 water diversion
structures, 23 of which have active water rights (CWCB and CDWR 2011,
unpaginated). Diversion rights totaling rates of approximately 50 cubic
feet per second (cfps) (1.4 cubic meters per second (cmps)) plus an
additional volume of approximately 205 acre-feet (252,800 cubic meters)
are permitted (CWCB and CDWR 2011, unpaginated). A minimum flow of 2
cfps (0.06 cmps) for Elkhorn Creek is included among the active water
rights (CWCB and CDWR 2011, unpaginated). This minimum flow indirectly
provides some protection to habitat of the Arapahoe snowfly. However,
Elkhorn Creek is described as an intermittent stream (Nelson and
Kondratieff 1988, p. 79), and during periods of low precipitation it
may be dry, despite in-stream flow water rights. The species' life
history includes a diapause stage that allows it to inhabit streams
which may become dry during the year due to high temperatures or low
flows (Harper and Hynes 1970, pp. 925-926; Stewart and Stark 2002, p.
34).
In the upstream reach of the Cache la Poudre River that includes
the confluence of Elkhorn Creek, water inputs and outputs tend to
balance out (City of Fort Collins 2008a, p. 5). Further downstream,
below the mouth of the Cache la Poudre Canyon, there are numerous water
depletions (City of Fort Collins 2008a, pp. 5-6). However, the
downstream river reach does not have an impact on the amount of water
in Elkhorn Creek.
Several water diversions on Elkhorn Creek or its tributaries have
modified or curtailed habitat for the Arapahoe snowfly. However, a
minimum flow of 2 cfps for Elkhorn Creek is included among the active
water rights, and information on other species of winter stoneflies
indicates that diapause enables them to withstand naturally dry summer
conditions. Therefore, at present, we do not consider water diversions
to be a threat to the species.
Wastewater
The two largest known wastewater inputs within the Elkhorn Creek
watershed are a Boy Scout camp (camp) located approximately 5 to 6 mi
(8 to 10 km) upstream of known occupied habitat for the Arapahoe
snowfly and a meditation and yoga retreat (retreat) located
approximately 6 to 7 mi (10 to 11 km) upstream. Both facilities have
septic tanks and constructed wetlands or evaporation ponds for treating
wastewater prior to discharge into the groundwater basin within the
Elkhorn
[[Page 27393]]
Creek watershed (North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association
2011, unpaginated). Both the camp and the retreat are building
treatment facilities that will further reduce the possibility of
wastewater entering Elkhorn Creek (North Front Range Water Quality
Planning Association 2011, unpaginated). With these precautions, we
conclude that contamination of the Arapahoe snowfly habitat by
wastewater from the camp or retreat is unlikely and therefore, not a
threat to the species.
None of the streams in the project area are listed on the State
Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) list as impaired. However,
groundwater monitoring wells installed both up-gradient and down-
gradient from the retreat's wastewater treatment site show that all
parameters, with the exception of chloride, had their lowest values
(i.e., highest water quality) in groundwater up-gradient of the
wastewater treatment site and their highest values (i.e., worst water
quality) down-gradient of the wastewater treatment site (Zigler 2010,
p. 5; Campbell 2011, unpaginated). Data submitted for June 2010,
through July 2011, measured the following water quality parameters:
Table 2--Water Quality From Groundwater Monitoring Wells (mg/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter Lowest recorded value Highest recorded value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Inorganic Nitrogen......... 0.09 (up-gradient well).. 10.77 (down-gradient well).
Total Coliform................... Less than 1 (both wells). 46 (down-gradient well).
Chloride......................... 6 (up-gradient well)..... 43.9 (up-gradient well).
Sulfate.......................... 16.8 (up-gradient well).. 132.2 (down-gradient well).
Total Dissolved Solids........... 142 (up-gradient well)... 400 (down-gradient well).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contaminant inputs can move from groundwater into surface water
through the hyporheic zone (Boulton et al. 1998, p. 73). Although down-
gradient concentrations are elevated, none of the pollutants measured
are priority pollutants under the CWA. We cannot make firm conclusions
regarding the extent of contamination in the species' habitat caused by
wastewater discharge into groundwater 5 to 7 mi (8 to 11 km) upstream
without corresponding surface-water quality measurements taken during
the summer in lower Elkhorn Creek near known Arapahoe snowfly occupied
habitat, when human use upstream is much greater than occurred during
the recent winter sampling period. None of the groundwater or surface-
water quality information available indicates that nutrient enrichment
(high levels of nitrogen or phosphorus), which could lead to algal
blooms and decreased dissolved oxygen, is occurring. Wastewater inputs
may have modified habitat through nutrient inputs into groundwater
within the Elkhorn Creek watershed that could impact the hyporheic zone
where Arapahoe snowfly nymphs undergo diapause. However, these inputs
occur 5 to 7 mi (8 to 11 km) upstream, and we have only limited water-
quality information in the vicinity of the species' known habitat. This
data does not indicate nutrient enrichment, but sampling occurred on
only one date during the winter, when wastewater inputs are minimal. At
present, based upon the best available information, we do not consider
wastewater a threat to the species.
Forest Management
In this section we discuss management by the USFS to address the
mountain pine beetle; specifically, spraying trees with carbaryl to
protect against mountain pine beetle attack and removal of hazardous
trees.
Carbaryl is considered one of the most effective and
environmentally safe insecticides used to prevent mountain pine beetle
attack (Hastings et al. 2001, p. 803). Nevertheless, carbaryl poses
ecological risks, particularly to honey bees and aquatic invertebrates
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2004, p. 1). It is rated as
``very highly toxic'' to aquatic invertebrates, with one of the test
organisms a species of stonefly (Chloroperla grammatica) (EPA 2004, p.
46). Despite no-spray buffer zones around aquatic habitats, pesticides
such as carbaryl may be deposited by drift or mobilized by runoff from
upland areas (Beyers et al. 1995, p. 27). A study described by Beyers
et al. (1995, p. 32) found that virtually all stoneflies collected from
a stream following carbaryl spraying were dead; however, mortality was
likely ameliorated by colonization from unaffected organisms of the
same species in the substrate or living upstream. In recent years, the
USFS has been spraying carbaryl on thousands of individual trees in the
Canyon Lakes Ranger District in an effort to control the ongoing
mountain pine beetle outbreak (USFS 2009c, 2010b, 2011a, unpaginated).
However, none of the sites sprayed to date are within the Elkhorn Creek
watershed (Casamassa 2011, pp. 5-6). Pesticide drift into Arapahoe
snowfly habitat is not likely due to the distance from sites that are
sprayed. We have no information indicating that the Forest Service
intends to spray carbaryl in the Elkhorn Creek watershed in the future,
and they are committed to following label restrictions whenever using
this pesticide. Therefore, at present, we do not consider spraying with
carbaryl a threat to the species.
The USFS has been removing hazardous trees within the Canyon Lakes
Ranger District that have been killed as a result of the mountain pine
beetle outbreak (USFS 2009c, 2010b, 2011a, unpaginated). Hazardous
trees in this area represent an imminent threat to public health and
safety, and largely consist of lodgepole and ponderosa pine. The high
percentage of dead trees also increases the amount of forest fuels
available during a potential wildfire (USFS 2010a, p. 1). The USFS
estimates that approximately 85 percent (48,000 ac (19,000 ha)) of the
Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests have been infested by mountain
pine beetles (USFS 2010a, p. 1). Some restrictions regarding tree
removal exist within critical habitat for the threatened Preble's
meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei). Designated critical
habitat for the mouse includes the downstream reaches of both Elkhorn
Creek and Young Gulch that contain potential habitat for the Arapahoe
snowfly. Mechanical vegetation and slash treatments within critical
habitat will occur only during the mouse's hibernation period (November
1-April 30) (USFS 2010a, p. 15). Hand (chainsaw) treatment of
vegetation and slash can occur at any time (USFS 2010a, p. 15). No new
stream crossings would be allowed in critical habitat (USFS 2010a, p.
16). Adult Arapahoe snowflies have been collected in late March and
early April (Mazzacano undated, p. 2), and could potentially be
[[Page 27394]]
active during removal of hazardous trees.
Ponderosa pines are more common in the upper reaches of Elkhorn
Creek than in downstream reaches (Nelson and Kondratieff 1988, p. 79).
This lessens the likelihood of tree removal occurring in lower stream
reaches in the vicinity of Arapahoe snowfly habitat. Nevertheless,
upstream removal of hazardous trees for reasons of public safety and
fuel reduction could increase erosion and sediment loading due to soil
disturbance near riparian areas (USFS 2010a, p. 40). However, leaving
dead trees in place would increase the likelihood of large-scale or
high-intensity wildfires due to increased fuel loads (USFS 2010a, p.
44). A wildfire in the vicinity of Arapahoe snowfly habitat could
result in extirpation of the species through loss of streamside
vegetation important for adult Arapahoe snowfly habitat and as a food
source for nymphs and increased sedimentation. Therefore, at present,
we do not consider removal of hazardous trees to be a threat to the
species as this activity lessens the risk of wildfire. Furthermore, any
removal of hazardous trees would likely occur upstream of Arapahoe
snowfly habitat.
In conclusion, spraying of carbaryl is currently not implemented
within the Elkhorn Creek watershed and, therefore, it is not currently
a threat to the Arapahoe snowfly. Removal of hazardous trees may occur
in upstream reaches of Elkhorn Creek and could potentially contribute
to sediment loading in this stream. However, this activity could be
more benefit than harm to the species as it reduces the risk of
wildfire. Therefore, at present, we do not consider the forest
management practice of hazardous tree removal to be a threat to the
species.
Grazing
The USFS manages one active cattle grazing allotment in the Elkhorn
Creek watershed (Elkhorn-Lady Moon allotment) (Casamassa 2011, p. 5).
The Elkhorn-Lady Moon allotment permits stocking of 75 cow-calf pairs
from June 1 through September 30 (USFS 2006a, p. 4). Grazing has been
discontinued on a second allotment (Seven Mile allotment) that also
includes part of the Elkhorn Creek watershed (USFS 2006a, p. 9).
The effects of cattle grazing on streams have been well documented
in the western United States (Clary and Webster 1989, p. 1; Chaney et
al. 1993, p. 6; Fleischner 1994, p. 629; Belsky et al. 1999, p. 419;
Agouridis et al. 2005, p. 592; Coles-Ritchie et al. 2007, p. 733).
Cattle are attracted to, and tend to loaf in riparian areas (Roath and
Krueger 1982, p. 100; Chaney et al. 1993, p. 6; Fleischner 1994, p.
629; Leonard et al. 1997, p. 11; Coles-Ritchie et al. 2007, p. 738).
Grazing cattle can change watershed hydrology, alter stream channel
morphology, erode soils, destroy riparian vegetation, impair water
quality, and negatively affect aquatic species (Fleischner 1994, p.
635; Agouridis et al. 2005, p. 592). Water quality impacts can include
increased nutrient levels, bacteria counts, protozoa, sediment loads,
and water temperatures and decreased levels of dissolved oxygen (Belsky
et al. 1999, p. 421). Cattle-impacted streams usually have unstable,
trampled streambanks that become significant sources of sediments when
they erode, resulting in sediment filling the spaces between cobble in
the streambed (embedded streambed), which results in less accessibility
to macroinvertebrates, like the Arapahoe snowfly, that use streambed
habitat (Braccia and Voshell 2007, p. 198). Stream channel morphology
impacts can include decreased channel and streambank stability during
floods, and decreased bed gravel. Hydrology impacts can include
decreased late-season flows and water table levels (Belsky et al. 1999,
pp. 421-422). Impacts to riparian vegetation can include decreased
abundance of submerged and emergent higher plants and increased algae
(Belsky et al. 1999, p. 422). All of these changes can alter the
diversity, abundance, and species composition of invertebrate
populations, particularly those that require cleaner and colder waters
and coarser substrates (Belsky et al. 1999, p. 424).
The percentage of stoneflies and other sensitive taxa in a stream
has a negative relationship with cattle density (Braccia and Voshell
2007, p. 196; McIver and McInnis 2007, pp. 298 and 301). Higher
stocking rates result in greater impacts to streams. Livestock
excrement elevates stream water concentrations of inorganic phosphorus
and nitrogen, which increases growth of filamentous algae and
production by microbes that can reduce dissolved oxygen concentrations
(Strand and Merrit 1999, p. 17). Reduced concentrations of dissolved
oxygen can adversely affect stonefly nymphs, which have high dissolved
oxygen requirements (Williams and Feltmate 1992, p. 39).
A Colorado study in the South Platte River watershed (which
includes the Cache la Poudre River) found significantly higher counts
of fecal bacteria in stream water at stocking rates of 0.38 cow per ac
(0.94 cow per ha) or more (Gary et al. 1983, p. 128). As stated above,
the grazing allotment on Elkhorn Creek has a much lower stocking rate
that permits stocking 75 cow-calf pairs from June 11 through September
30 on 11,605 ac (4,700 ha), or 0.006 cow-calf pair per ac (0.02 cow-
calf pair per ha) (USFS 2006b, p. 34; 2007, p. 12; 2011b, p. 1). If
only primary range (1,975 ac (800 ha)) within the Elkhorn-Lady Moon
allotment, where the majority of grazing occurs, is considered, the
stocking rate is higher (0.04 cow-calf pair per ac (0.09 cow-calf pair
per ha)), but still much less than the stocking rate of 0.38 cow per ac
(0.94 cow per ha) from the study. Therefore, fecal bacteria counts in
Elkhorn Creek may not be as elevated as at the study site. Low
concentrations (less than established water quality standards) of E.
coli bacteria have been detected in the Cache la Poudre River during
the summer, perhaps due to increased recreation and cattle grazing in
the watershed, combined with warmer stream water temperatures that can
enhance bacterial survival (Collins and Sprague 2005, p. 1). However,
the source of E. coli detected in the river is not known.
The Elkhorn-Lady Moon allotment management plan states: (1)
Livestock will graze a pasture only once in any given year; (2)
livestock will be removed when utilization reaches 45 percent on
satisfactory upland range or 30 percent on unsatisfactory range; (3)
livestock will be removed when stream reaches rated as functional-at-
risk reach an average of 6 in. (150 mm) stubble height on tall sedges;
and (4) livestock will be removed when streambank disturbance
(trampling, exposed soils) reaches 20 to 25 percent of the key area
stream reach (USFS 2007, p. 3; 2011b, pp. 1-3). The current grazing
plan allows for a five-pasture rotational system (USFS 2007, p. 4). The
allotment plan notes that lower reaches of Elkhorn Creek within the
allotment have varying degrees of grazing impacts including heavily
grazed sedges and hoof shearing along portions of the streambank,
resulting in a marginal proper functioning rating (USFS 2007, p. 10).
At its closest point, the Elkhorn-Lady Moon allotment is approximately
6 to 7 mi (10 to 11 km) upstream from where the Arapahoe snowfly has
been found. Without surface-water quality measurements, taken during
the summer grazing season and collected in lower Elkhorn Creek where
there is known Arapahoe snowfly habitat, we cannot make firm
conclusions regarding the extent of contamination in the species'
habitat caused by grazing 6 to 7 mi (10 to 11 km) or further upstream.
In conclusion, grazing may have modified habitat through sediment
loading and nutrient inputs into upstream reaches of the Elkhorn Creek
[[Page 27395]]
watershed. However, stocking rates are light, these inputs occur at
least 6 to 7 mi (10 to 11 km) upstream from where the Arapahoe snowfly
has been found, and there is no water quality information from the
summer grazing season in the vicinity of the species' known habitat to
confirm or refute nutrient enrichment. Therefore, at present, we do not
consider grazing to be a threat to the species.
Management Plans and Other Conservation Measures
In some instances, there may be conservation measures or management
plans that are non-regulatory in nature which may provide benefits to a
species.
The CNHP has proposed a Potential Conservation Area (PCA) for the
species that would encompass approximately 5,000 ac (2,000 ha) and
include downstream portions of both Elkhorn Creek and Young Gulch
(Colorado State University 2005, p. 2). This PCA has a Biodiversity
Significance Rank of B1 for outstanding biodiversity significance. This
is the highest level of biological diversity that can be assigned to a
site. A PCA can provide planning and management guidance, but infers no
legal status, and this PCA has only been proposed.
The State of Colorado has had minimum in-stream flow water rights
of 2 cfps (0.06 cmps) in Elkhorn Creek since 1978 (CWCB 2010, p. 10).
This minimum flow indirectly provides some protection to habitat of the
Arapahoe snowfly. However, Elkhorn Creek is described as an
intermittent stream (Nelson and Kondratieff 1988, p. 79), and during
periods of low precipitation it may be dry, despite in-stream flow
water rights. Therefore, minimum flow requirements may be of limited
benefit to the species.
Both stream reaches where the Arapahoe snowfly has been located are
included in critical habitat for the Preble's meadow jumping mouse,
designated on December 15, 2010 (75 FR 78430). Critical habitat extends
394 ft (120 m) from the edges of both streams, and is part of the Cache
la Poudre River unit of critical habitat encompassing approximately
4,929 ac (1,995 ha) and 51 mi (82 km) of the river and its tributaries.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with us
on any action funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency
that is likely to adversely affect the continued existence of the mouse
or its designated critical habitat. Examples of specific activities
that may adversely affect critical habitat and, therefore, require
consultation include: Land clearing; road construction; bank
stabilization; intensive grazing; water diversions; changes to inputs
of water, sediment, and nutrients; or any activity that significantly
and detrimentally alters water quantity.
This designation currently provides some indirect protection to the
Arapahoe snowfly. The bodies of the streams are not included as
critical habitat, although activities in the streams such as water
diversions and changes to inputs of water, sediment, and nutrients such
as might be caused by hazardous tree removal will require consultation
if those activities may adversely affect critical habitat. Actions that
do not affect the Preble's meadow jumping mouse or its habitat, or do
not involve a Federal agency action, would not require consultation.
Federal actions that occurred prior to 2003 did not require
consultation because critical habitat for the mouse had not yet been
designated. Designation of critical habitat for the Preble's meadow
jumping mouse does not protect Arapahoe snowfly occupied habitat from
the potential future effects of climate change, nor does it protect the
body of Elkhorn Creek from some impacts to water quality that could
likely occur without impacting designated critical habitat.
Summary of Factor A
Potential present and threatened future habitat modification caused
by climate change is a threat to the Arapahoe snowfly. Climate change
is potentially modifying Arapahoe snowfly habitat in several ways
including: (1) The threatened reduction in snowpack; (2) the present
increase in temperature as well as continued threatened increases in
future years; (3) the present outbreak of mountain pine beetle in
ponderosa pine; and (4) the threatened increased likelihood of
wildfire. Although available information indicates that climate change
could potentially be modifying the species' habitat, we do not have any
information that indicates this is currently threatening the species.
However, the impacts from each of these stressors are expected to
increase into the future. Therefore, we consider threatened habitat
modification due to climate change to be a threat to the species.
Development in the Elkhorn Creek watershed includes the
construction and use of numerous roads and trails, causing
sedimentation that has resulted in a watershed rated as Class II or
``at risk.'' Water diversions from Elkhorn Creek and wastewater inputs
into groundwater in the Elkhorn Creek watershed also may be impacting
Arapahoe snowfly habitat. However, the extent of impact in the
downstream reach where the species occurs has not been determined.
Therefore, at present, we do not consider development a threat to the
species.
Forest management by the USFS regarding the ongoing mountain pine
beetle epidemic includes carbaryl spraying of lodgepole and ponderosa
pines to prevent infestations and removal of dead trees that are a
potential hazard. However, carbaryl spraying is not occurring in the
Elkhorn Creek watershed, and we consider tree removal to pose less of a
threat to the Arapahoe snowfly than the increased risk from wildfire if
dead trees are not removed. Therefore, at present, we do not consider
forest management practices to be a threat to the species.
Some grazing occurs in upstream reaches of the Elkhorn Creek
watershed. However, stocking rates are light, these inputs occur at
least 6 to 7 mi (10 to 11 km) upstream from where the Arapahoe snowfly
has been found, and we have no water quality information in the
vicinity of the species' known habitat to confirm or refute nutrient
enrichment. Therefore, at present, we do not consider grazing to be a
threat to the species.
There are management plans or other conservation measures that
directly or indirectly protect the species, to some degree. However,
these cannot protect against habitat modification due to climate
change.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
We are not aware of any threats due to overutilization of the
Arapahoe snowfly for any commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes at this time. We are aware that specimens have
been collected for scientific purposes to describe the species and
determine its distribution and abundance (Heinold and Kondratieff 2010,
p. 281; Heinold 2011d, unpaginated). However, we have no information
that suggests these collections were or are occurring at a level that
impacts the overall status of the species. Therefore, at present, we do
not consider overutilization to be a threat to the species.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
We are not aware of any diseases that affect the Arapahoe snowfly.
Therefore, at present, we do not consider disease to be a threat to the
species. We presume that Arapahoe snowfly nymphs and adults may
occasionally be subject to predation by certain fish species, such as
brook trout (Salvelinus
[[Page 27396]]
fontinalis) or by certain bird species, such as the American dipper
(Cinclus mexicanus). Both of these species are known to be present in
Elkhorn Creek and to consume invertebrates (USFS 2006b, p. 69; eBird
2011, unpaginated). However, nymphs may be protected from most
predation due to burrowing into the streambed to undergo diapause,
leaving terrestrial adults as the most likely potential prey. However,
we have no information that any predation is a threat to the species.
Therefore, at present, we do not consider predation to be a threat to
the species.
Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The Act requires us to examine the adequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms with respect to ongoing and foreseeable threats that place
the Arapahoe snowfly at risk of becoming either endangered or
threatened. The species currently receives no direct protection under
Federal, State, or local law.
The Arapahoe snowfly is designated as ``critically imperiled'' at
both the State and global level by Colorado's Natural Heritage Program
(CNHP) and NatureServe, respectively (NatureServe 2009, p. 1). However,
this designation does not provide any legal protection for the species
or its habitat. See Factor A for a discussion of the CNHP. The Arapahoe
snowfly is designated as a ``species of greatest conservation need'' by
the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW), based upon its global and
State ranking by NatureServe and the CNHP (CDOW 2006, pp. 17 and 20).
However, this designation also confers no protection to the species
from the threats identified in Factors A and E.
The Arapahoe snowfly occurs on USFS lands and is indirectly
protected by Federal laws and regulations mandating how USFS lands are
managed. The Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for the Arapaho
and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland was
prepared in accordance with the National Forest Management Act of 1976
(NFMA), the regulatory mechanism directing the administration and
management of national forests. One of the goals of the LRMP is to
restore, protect, and enhance habitats for endangered, threatened, and
proposed species listed in accordance with the Act, as well as
sensitive species appearing on the regional sensitive species list to
contribute to their stabilization and full recovery (USFS 1997, p. 17).
Habitat on USFS lands is managed to help assure that species whose
viability is a concern survive throughout their range, that populations
increase or stabilize, or that threats are eliminated (USFS 1997, p.
7). However, the species is not currently listed under the Act, and it
is not on the USFS sensitive species list. Consequently, it currently
receives no direct protection under the USFS LRMP. The management
authorities that USFS has available are not adequate to protect the
species from the primary threats of climate change and small population
size (see Factor E).
All Federal agencies are required to adhere to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for
projects they fund, authorize, or carry out. The Council on
Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-
1518) state that when preparing environmental impact statements,
agencies must include a discussion on the environmental impacts of the
various project alternatives, any adverse environmental effects that
cannot be avoided, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of
resource involved. Additionally, activities on non-Federal lands are
subject to NEPA if there is a Federal action. The NEPA is a disclosure
law, and does not require subsequent minimization or mitigation
measures by the Federal agency involved. Although Federal agencies may
include conservation measures for sensitive species as a result of the
NEPA process, any such measures are typically voluntary in nature and
not required by the statute.
On December 15, 2009, the EPA published in the Federal Register (74
FR 66496) a rule titled, ``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute
Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air
Act.'' In this rule, the EPA Administrator found that the current and
projected concentrations of the six long-lived and directly emitted
greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride--in the
atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future
generations; and that the combined emissions of these greenhouse gases
from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the
greenhouse gas pollution that threatens public health and welfare (74
FR 66496). In effect, the EPA has concluded that the greenhouse gases
linked to climate change are pollutants, whose emissions can now be
subject to the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.; see 74 FR 66496).
However, specific regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions were
only proposed in 2010 and, therefore, cannot be considered an existing
regulatory mechanism. At present, we have no basis to conclude that
implementation of the Clean Air Act in the foreseeable future (40
years, based on global climate projections) will substantially reduce
the current rate of global climate change through regulation of
greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, we conclude that the Clean Air Act is
not designed to address the primary threats to the Arapahoe snowfly,
namely the anticipated loss of thermally and hydrologically suitable
habitat as a result of increasing water temperatures and reduced
snowpack changes that result from climate change in the Elkhorn Creek
watershed, Colorado.
Combined with the threats discussed under Factor A, the species'
small population size makes the species more vulnerable to extinction
due to demographic stochasticity, environmental stochasticity, and
random catastrophe (discussed under Factor E). We are not aware of any
regulatory mechanisms that address threats caused by small population
size for this species.
Summary of Factor D
There are no regulatory mechanisms that directly protect the
Arapahoe snowfly at the Federal, State, or local level. The species is
indirectly protected by Federal laws and regulations mandating how USFS
lands are managed. These regulatory mechanisms cannot protect against
climate change or a small population size (discussed under Factor E).
We consider habitat loss and modification resulting from the
environmental changes due to climate change to constitute a primary
threat to the species. The United States is only now beginning to
address global climate change through the regulatory process (e.g.,
Clean Air Act). We have no information on what regulations may
eventually be adopted and when implemented. We are not aware of any
regulatory mechanisms that address the changes in Arapahoe snowfly
habitat that are occurring or likely to occur in the future.
Additionally, we are not aware of any regulations that address threats
caused by small population size.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Under this factor we consider the small population size of the
Arapahoe snowfly. As discussed in the section on Historic Distribution,
the species has been extirpated from Young Gulch, one of the two
streams where it was known to occur. Based upon the best available
[[Page 27397]]
information, it appears to currently have an extremely narrow
distribution near the confluence of Elkhorn Creek with the Cache la
Poudre River, and appears rare within its only known occupied habitat.
A species may be considered rare because of a limited geographical
range, specialized habitat, or small population size (Primack 1998, p.
176). The Arapahoe snowfly appears to have a very limited occupied
range (approximately 1,640 ft (500 m) along 1 stream) and a very small
population size (13 males and 2 females have been collected in the past
25 years). It has several characteristics typical of species vulnerable
to extinction including: (1) A very narrow geographical range; (2) only
one known population; (3) a small population size; (4) an ineffective
disperser; (5) a seasonal migrant depending on two or more distinct
habitat types to complete its life cycle; and (6) characteristically
found in stable, pristine environments (Primack 1998, pp. 178-187).
Extinction may be caused by demographic stochasticity due to chance
realizations of individual probabilities of death and reproduction,
particularly in small populations (Shaffer 1981, p. 131; Lande 1993,
pp. 911-912). Environmental stochasticity can result in extinction
through a series of small or moderate perturbations that affect birth
and death rates within a population (Shaffer 1981, p. 131; Lande 1993,
p. 912). Lastly, extinction can be caused by random catastrophes
(Shaffer 1981, p. 131; Lande 1993, p. 912). The Arapahoe snowfly is
vulnerable to extinction due to: (1) Demographic stochasticity due to
its small population size; (2) environmental stochasticity due to
continued small perturbations caused by ongoing modification and
curtailment of its habitat and range; and (3) the chance of random
catastrophe such as wildfire.
Small populations also can be vulnerable due to a lack of genetic
diversity (Shaffer 1981, p. 132). We have no information regarding
genetic diversity of the Arapahoe snowfly. A minimum viable population
(MVP) will vary depending on the species. An MVP of 1,000 may be
adequate for species of normal genetic variability, and an MVP of
10,000 should permit long-term persistence and continued genetic
diversity (Thomas 1990, p. 325). These estimates should be increased by
at least 1 order of magnitude (to 10,000 and 100,000) for insects
because they usually have greater population variability (Thomas 1990,
p. 326). Based upon available information, the Arapahoe snowfly likely
does not meet these minimum population criteria for maintaining genetic
diversity.
Summary of Factor E
We consider the Arapahoe snowfly to be rare due to its extremely
limited range, a single known extant population, and its small
population size. It also is an ineffective disperser, a seasonal
migrant depending on two or more distinct habitat types to complete its
life cycle, and it requires a pristine environment to carry out life
history functions. The restricted range of the species does not
necessarily constitute a threat in itself. However, combined with the
threats discussed under Factor A, the species' small population size
makes the species more vulnerable to extinction due to demographic
stochasticity, environmental stochasticity, and random catastrophe. The
presence of specific threats including climate change increases the
vulnerability of this small population. Therefore, at present, we
consider its small population size to be a threat to the species.
Finding
As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing
whether the Arapahoe snowfly is threatened or endangered throughout all
of its range. We examined the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
faced by the species. We reviewed the petition, information available
in our files, other available published and unpublished information,
and we consulted with recognized species experts and other Federal and
State agencies.
This status review identified threats to the Arapahoe snowfly
attributable to Factors A, D, and E. Potential present and threatened
habitat modification caused by climate change is impacting the Elkhorn
Creek watershed. We also find that the species is at risk due to its
small population size. Existing regulatory mechanisms are not designed
to protect the species from threats identified under Factors A and E.
The following table summarizes the conclusions from our five factor
analysis:
Table 3--Summary of the Act's Five Factor Analysis for the Arapahoe
Snowfly, Elkhorn Creek
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor/stressor Threat conclusion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor A:
Climate Change:
Reduced Snowpack............... Future threat.
Increased Temperature.......... Ongoing and future threat.
Mountain Pine Beetle........... Ongoing and future threat.
Wildfire....................... Future threat.
Recreational Use................... Present, but not a threat.
Development:
Roads.......................... Present, but not a threat.
Water Diversions............... Present, but not a threat.
Wastewater Inputs.............. Present, but not a threat.
Forest Management:
Carbaryl Spraying.............. Not present, not a threat.
Hazardous Tree Removal......... Present, but not a threat.
Grazing........................ Present, but not a threat.
Factor B:
Overutilization.................... Present, but not a threat.
Factor C:
Disease............................ Not present, not a threat.
Predation.......................... Present, but not a threat.
Factor D:
Inadequate Regulatory Mechanisms... No mechanisms existing or
designed to address threats.
Factor E:
[[Page 27398]]
Small Population Size.............. Ongoing and future threat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the basis of the best scientific and commercial information
available, we find that the petitioned action is warranted. We will
make a determination on the status of the species as threatened or
endangered when we do a proposed listing determination. However, as
explained in more detail below, an immediate proposal of a regulation
implementing this action is precluded by higher priority listing
actions, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove
qualified species from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants.
We reviewed the available information to determine if the existing
and foreseeable threats render the species at risk of extinction now
such that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the
Arapahoe snowfly under section 4(b)(7) of the Act is warranted. We
determined that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the
species is not warranted for this species at this time, because the
species is not under immediate threat of extinction. Impacts from
climate change, a small population size, and lack of adequate
regulatory mechanisms are cumulative, and will develop in intensity and
scope over time. However, if at any time we determine that issuing an
emergency regulation temporarily listing the Arapahoe snowfly is
warranted, we will initiate this action at that time.
Listing Priority Number
The Service adopted guidelines on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098),
to establish a rational system for utilizing available resources for
the highest priority species when adding species to the Lists of
Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying species
listed as threatened to endangered status. These guidelines, titled
``Endangered and Threatened Species Listing and Recovery Priority
Guidelines,'' address the magnitude and immediacy of threats and the
level of taxonomic distinctiveness by assigning priority in descending
order to monotypic genera (genus with one species), full species, and
subspecies (or equivalently distinct population segments of
vertebrates). Listing Priority Numbers (LPNs) range from 1 to 12, with
an LPN of 1 representing the highest priority. We assign the Arapahoe
snowfly an LPN of 5 based on our finding that this is a species facing
threats that are of high magnitude, but those threats are not imminent.
These threats include the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat, the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms, and its small population size. Our rationale for
assigning the Arapahoe snowfly an LPN of 5 is outlined below.
Under the Service's LPN Guidance, the magnitude of threat is the
first criterion we look at when establishing a listing priority. The
guidance indicates that species with the highest magnitude of threat
are those species facing the greatest threats to their continued
existence. These species receive the highest priority. Threats to the
Arapahoe snowfly are of high magnitude because climate change,
inadequate regulatory mechanisms, and a small population size occur
throughout the range of the species. The species has not been located
in Young Gulch since 1986 and, despite repeated searches, has not been
located in other nearby tributaries, leaving one small known population
along a reach of Elkhorn Creek of approximately 1,640 ft (500 m).
Under our LPN Guidance, the second criterion we consider in
assigning a listing priority is the immediacy of threats. This
criterion is intended to ensure that the species facing actual,
identifiable threats are given priority over those species for which
threats are only potential or species that are intrinsically
vulnerable, but are not known to be presently facing such threats. We
consider the threats to the Arapahoe snowfly overall to be non-imminent
because: (1) Although increases in temperature in excess of those known
to adversely impact stoneflies have been documented in the northern
Front Range of Colorado, we have no information to indicate that the
species has actually been adversely affected by these temperatures; and
(2) a single small population with a very limited range results in
increased vulnerability to extirpation caused by threats from climate
change and sedimentation; however, the species has been located in
Elkhorn Creek on three occasions since 1987. While regulatory
mechanisms are currently inadequate to protect the species from the
previously described threats, these impacts do not appear to be
affecting the existing population in Elkhorn Creek, though they may be
precluding reestablishment in the Young Gulch watershed.
These actual, identifiable threats are covered in detail under the
discussion of Factors A, D, and E of this finding. We previously
acknowledged that few studies have been conducted on the Arapahoe
snowfly due to its rarity, the difficulties in distinguishing among
species of snowfly nymphs, and difficulties of sampling under ice in
winter. Consequently, most of the best available information regarding
specific impacts caused by the various threats comes from our knowledge
about stoneflies (order Plecoptera) in general, other members of winter
stonefly (family Capniidae), and other species of snowfly (genus
Capnia). Due to the extreme rarity of the Arapahoe snowfly, species-
specific research is not likely to be conducted, and we do not consider
it appropriate to defer this finding until research is conducted. The
available data shows adverse impacts from these threats for closely
related species.
The third criterion in our LPN guidance is intended to devote
resources to those species representing highly distinctive or isolated
gene pools as reflected by taxonomy. The Arapahoe snowfly is a valid
taxon at the species level and, therefore, receives a higher priority
than a subspecies, but a lower priority than a species in a monotypic
genus. The Arapahoe snowfly faces high-magnitude, nonimminent threats,
and is a valid taxon at the species level. Thus, in accordance with our
LPN guidance, we have assigned the Arapahoe snowfly an LPN of 5.
We will continue to monitor the threats to the Arapahoe snowfly and
the species' status on an annual basis, and should the magnitude or the
imminence of the threats change, we will revisit our assessment of the
LPN.
Work on a proposed listing determination for the Arapahoe snowfly
is precluded by work on higher priority listing actions with absolute
statutory, court-ordered, or court-approved deadlines and final listing
determinations for those species that were proposed for listing with
funds from Fiscal Year 2012. This work includes all the actions listed
in the
[[Page 27399]]
tables below under expeditious progress.
Preclusion and Expeditious Progress
Preclusion is a function of the listing priority of a species in
relation to the resources that are available and the cost and relative
priority of competing demands for those resources. Thus, in any given
fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate whether it will be possible
to undertake work on a listing proposal regulation or whether
promulgation of such a proposal is precluded by higher priority listing
actions. We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis
to ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed
first and also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide
basis.
Available Resources
Congress identified the availability of resources as the only basis
for deferring the initiation of a rulemaking that is warranted. The
Conference Report accompanying Public Law 97-304 (Endangered Species
Act Amendments of 1982), which established the current statutory
deadlines and the warranted-but-precluded finding, states that the
amendments were ``not intended to allow the Secretary to delay
commencing the rulemaking process for any reason other than that the
existence of pending or imminent proposals to list species subject to a
greater degree of threat would make allocation of resources to such a
petition [that is, for a lower-ranking species] unwise.'' Although that
statement appeared to refer specifically to the ``to the maximum extent
practicable'' limitation on the 90-day deadline for making a
``substantial information'' finding, that finding is made at the point
when the Service is deciding whether or not to commence a status review
that will determine the degree of threats facing the species, and
therefore the analysis underlying the statement is more relevant to the
use of the warranted-but-precluded finding, which is made when the
Service has already determined the degree of threats facing the species
and is deciding whether or not to commence a rulemaking.
The resources available for listing actions are determined through
the annual Congressional appropriations process. The appropriation for
the Listing Program is available to support work involving the
following listing actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 90-day and
12-month findings on petitions to add species to the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) or to change the
status of a species from threatened to endangered; annual
``resubmitted'' petition findings on prior warranted-but-precluded
petition findings as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act;
critical habitat petition findings; proposed and final rules
designating critical habitat; and litigation-related, administrative,
and program-management functions (including preparing and allocating
budgets, responding to Congressional and public inquiries, and
conducting public outreach regarding listing and critical habitat). The
work involved in preparing various listing documents can be extensive
and may include, but is not limited to: Gathering and assessing the
best scientific and commercial data available and conducting analyses
used as the basis for our decisions; writing and publishing documents;
and obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating public comments and peer
review comments on proposed rules and incorporating relevant
information into final rules. The number of listing actions that we can
undertake in a given year also is influenced by the complexity of those
listing actions; that is, more complex actions generally are more
costly. The median cost for preparing and publishing a 90-day finding
is $39,276; for a 12-month finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule with
critical habitat, $345,000; and for a final listing rule with critical
habitat, $305,000.
We cannot spend more than is appropriated for the Listing Program
without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (see 31 U.S.C.
1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal year since
then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on funds that may be expended
for the Listing Program, equal to the amount expressly appropriated for
that purpose in that fiscal year. This cap was designed to prevent
funds appropriated for other functions under the Act (for example,
recovery funds for removing species from the Lists), or for other
Service programs, from being used for Listing Program actions (see
House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st Session, July 1, 1997).
Since FY 2002, the Service's budget has included a critical habitat
subcap to ensure that some funds are available for other work in the
Listing Program (``The critical habitat designation subcap will ensure
that some funding is available to address other listing activities''
(House Report No. 107-103, 107th Congress, 1st Session, June 19,
2001)). In FY 2002 and each year until FY 2006, the Service has had to
use virtually the entire critical habitat subcap to address court-
mandated designations of critical habitat, and consequently none of the
critical habitat subcap funds have been available for other listing
activities. In some FYs since 2006, we have been able to use some of
the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing
determinations for high-priority candidate species. In other FYs, while
we were unable to use any of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund
proposed listing determinations, we did use some of this money to fund
the critical habitat portion of some proposed listing determinations so
that the proposed listing determination and proposed critical habitat
designation could be combined into one rule, thereby being more
efficient in our work. At this time, for FY 2012, we are using some of
the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing
determinations.
Through the listing cap, the critical habitat subcap, and the
amount of funds needed to address court-mandated critical habitat
designations, Congress and the courts have in effect determined the
amount of money available for other listing activities nationwide.
Therefore, the funds in the listing cap, other than those needed to
address court-mandated critical habitat for already listed species, set
the limits on our determinations of preclusion and expeditious
progress.
Preclusion
For FY 2012, on December 23, 2011, Congress passed a Consolidated
Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 112-74) which provides funding through the
end of the fiscal year. The Service has $20,902,000 for the listing
program. Of that, no more than $7,472,000 is available for
determinations of critical habitat for already listed species. In
addition, while no more than $1,500,000 can be used for listing,
delisting, and reclassification actions for foreign species, $500,000
is being allocated for work on foreign species. The Service thus has
$12,930,000 available to fund work on listing actions other than
critical habitat designation and work on foreign species. The following
are categories of work for which listing funds are being used: (1)
Compliance with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements
requiring that petition findings or listing determinations be completed
by a specific date; (2) section 4 (of the Act) listing actions with
absolute statutory deadlines; and (3) essential litigation-related,
administrative, and listing program-management functions. In FY 2010,
the Service received many new petitions and a single petition to list
404 species, increasing our workload significantly. Additionally, as a
result of a settlement agreement, we are
[[Page 27400]]
implementing a work plan that establishes a framework and schedule for
resolving by September 30, 2016, the status of all of the species that
the Service had determined to be qualified as of the 2010 Candidate
Notice of Review. The Service submitted such a work plan to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia in In re Endangered Species
Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 10-377 (EGS), MDL Docket No.
2165 (D. DC May 10, 2011), and obtained the court's approval. In FY
2012, our entire listing budget has been allocated for work in the
above categories, primarily including work under this settlement
agreement. The budget allocations for each specific listing action are
identified in the Service's FY 2012 Allocation Tables (part of our
record). Thus, funding a proposed listing determination for the
Arapahoe snowfly is precluded by our lack of available resources.
Based on our September 21, 1983, guidelines for assigning an LPN
for each candidate species (48 FR 43098), we assign each candidate an
LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats (high or moderate
to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or nonimminent), and taxonomic
status of the species (in order of priority: Monotypic genus (a species
that is the sole member of a genus); species; or part of a species
(subspecies, or distinct population segment)). The lower the listing
priority number, the higher the listing priority (that is, a species
with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing priority). A species
with a higher LPN would generally be precluded from listing by species
with lower LPNs, unless work on a proposed rule for the species with
the higher LPN can be combined with work on a proposed rule for other
high-priority species. This is not the case for Arapahoe snowfly. Thus,
in addition to being precluded by the lack of available resources, the
Arapahoe snowfly with an LPN of 5 is also precluded by work on proposed
listing determinations for those candidate species with a higher
listing priority.
Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened species
to endangered species are lower priority, because as listed species,
they are already afforded the protections of the Act and implementing
regulations. However, for efficiency reasons, we may choose to work on
a proposed rule to reclassify a species to endangered if we can combine
this with work that is subject to a court-determined deadline.
With our workload much larger than the amount of funds we have to
accomplish it, it is important that we be as efficient as possible in
our listing process. Therefore, as we implement our listing work plan
and work on proposed rules for the highest priority species in the next
several years, we are preparing multi-species proposals when
appropriate, and these may include species with lower priority if they
overlap geographically or have the same threats as a species with an
LPN of 2. In addition, we take into consideration the availability of
staff resources when we determine which high-priority species will
receive funding to minimize the amount of time and resources required
to complete each listing action.
Expeditious Progress
As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but
precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made
to add and remove qualified species to and from the Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. As with our ``precluded'' finding,
the evaluation of whether progress in adding qualified species to the
Lists has been expeditious is a function of the resources available for
listing and the competing demands for those funds. (Although we do not
discuss it in detail here, we are also making expeditious progress in
removing species from the list under the Recovery program in light of
the resource available for delisting, which is funded by a separate
line item in the budget of the Endangered Species Program. To date,
during FY 2012, we completed delisting rules for one species.) Given
the limited resources available for listing, we find that we are making
expeditious progress in FY 2012 in the Listing Program. This progress
included preparing and publishing the following determinations:
FY 2012 Completed Listing Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publication date Title Actions FR pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/4/2011.................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 61298-61307.
Petition to List the petition finding, Not
Lake Sammamish warranted.
Kokanee Population of
Oncorhynchus nerka as
an Endangered or
Threatened Distinct
Population Segment.
10/4/2011.................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 61307-61321.
Petition to List petition finding, Not
Calopogon warranted.
oklahomensis as
Threatened or
Endangered.
10/4/2011.................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 61321-61330.
Petition To List the petition finding, Not
Amargosa River warranted.
Population of the
Mojave Fringe-toed
Lizard as an
Endangered or
Threatened Distinct
Population Segment.
10/4/2011.................. Endangered Status for Proposed Listing 76 FR 61482-61529.
the Alabama Endangered.
Pearlshell, Round
Ebonyshell, Southern
Sandshell, Southern
Kidneyshell, and
Choctaw Bean, and
Threatened Status for
the Tapered Pigtoe,
Narrow Pigtoe, and
Fuzzy Pigtoe; with
Critical Habitat.
10/4/2011.................. 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 61532-61554.
Petition To List 10 Petition Finding,
Subspecies of Great Substantial and Not
Basin Butterflies as substantial.
Threatened or
Endangered with
Critical Habitat.
10/5/2011.................. 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 61826-61853.
Petition to List 29 Petition Finding,
Mollusk Species as Substantial and Not
Threatened or substantial.
Endangered With
Critical Habitat.
10/5/2011.................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 61856-61894.
Petition to List the petition finding, Not
Cactus Ferruginous warranted.
Pygmy-Owl as
Threatened or
Endangered with
Critical Habitat.
10/5/2011.................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 61896-61931.
Petition to List the petition finding, Not
Northern Leopard Frog warranted.
in the Western United
States as Threatened.
10/6/2011.................. Endangered Status for Final Listing, 76 FR 61956-61978.
the Ozark Hellbender Endangered.
Salamander.
10/6/2011.................. Red-Crowned Parrot.... Notice of 12-month 76 FR 62016-62034.
petition finding,
Warranted but
precluded.
10/6/2011.................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 62166-62212.
Petition to List petition finding,
Texas Fatmucket, Warranted but
Golden Orb, Smooth precluded.
Pimpleback, Texas
Pimpleback, and Texas
Fawnsfoot as
Threatened or
Endangered.
[[Page 27401]]
10/6/2011.................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 62214-62258.
Petition to List the petition finding, Not
Mohave Ground warranted.
Squirrel as
Endangered or
Threatened.
10/6/2011.................. Partial 90-Day Finding Notice of 90-day 76 FR 62260-62280.
on a Petition to List Petition Finding, Not
404 Species in the substantial.
Southeastern United
States as Threatened
or Endangered With
Critical Habitat.
10/7/2011.................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 62504-62565.
Petition to List the petition finding, Not
Black-footed warranted.
Albatross as
Endangered or
Threatened.
10/11/2011................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 62722-62740.
Petition to List petition finding, Not
Amoreuxia gonzalezii, warranted.
Astragalus hypoxylus,
and Erigeron
piscaticus as
Endangered or
Threatened.
10/11/2011................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 62740-62754.
Petition and Proposed petition finding,
Rule to List the Warranted, Propose
Yellow-Billed Parrot. Listing, threatened.
10/11/2011................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 62900-62926.
Petition to List the petition finding, Not
Tehachapi Slender warranted.
Salamander as
Endangered or
Threatened.
10/11/2011................. Endangered Status for Final Listing, 76 FR 62928-62960.
the Altamaha Endangered.
Spinymussel and
Designation of
Critical Habitat.
10/11/2011................. 12-Month Finding for a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 63094-63115.
Petition to List the petition finding, Not
California Golden warranted.
Trout as Endangered.
10/12/2011................. 12-Month Petition Notice of 12-month 76 FR 63420-63442.
Finding, Proposed petition finding,
Listing of Warranted, Proposed
Coqu[iacute] Llanero Listing, Endangered.
as Endangered, and
Designation of
Critical Habitat for
Coqu[iacute] Llanero.
10/12/2011................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 63444-63478.
Petition to List petition finding, Not
Northern Leatherside warranted.
Chub as Endangered or
Threatened.
10/12/2011................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 63480-63508.
Petition to List Two petition finding, Not
South American Parrot warranted.
Species.
10/13/2011................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 63720-63762.
Petition to List a petition finding,
Distinct Population Warranted but
Segment of the Red precluded.
Tree Vole as
Endangered or
Threatened.
12/19/2011................. 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 78601-78609.
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
Western Glacier Substantial.
Stonefly as
Endangered With
Critical Habitat.
1/3/2012................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 77 FR 45-52.
Petition to List Petition Finding,
Sierra Nevada Red Fox Substantial.
as Endangered or
Threatened.
1/5/2012................... Listing Two Distinct Proposed 77 FR 666-697.
Population Segments Reclassification.
of Broad-Snouted
Caiman as Endangered
or Threatened and a
Special Rule.
1/12/2012.................. 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 77 FR 1900-1908.
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
Humboldt Marten as Substantial.
Endangered or
Threatened.
1/24/2012.................. 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 77 FR 3423-3432.
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
`I'iwi as Endangered Substantial.
or Threatened.
2/1/2012................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 77 FR 4973-4980.
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
San Bernardino Flying Substantial.
Squirrel as
Endangered or
Threatened With
Critical Habitat.
2/14/2012.................. Determination of Final Listing 77 FR 8632-8665.
Endangered Status for Endangered.
the Rayed Bean and
Snuffbox Mussels
Throughout Their
Ranges.
2/17/2012.................. 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 77 FR 9618-9619.
Petition to List the Petition Finding, Not
Thermophilic Ostracod substantial.
as Endangered or
Threatened.
3/13/2012.................. Determination of Final Listing, 77 FR 14914-14949.
Endangered Status for Endangered.
the Sheepnose and
Spectaclecase Mussels
Throughout Their
Range.
4/2/2012................... 12-month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 77 FR 19756--19797.
Petition to List the petition finding,
San Francisco Bay- Warranted but
Delta Population of precluded.
the Longfin Smelt as
Endangered or
Threatened.
4/6/2012................... Listing of the Miami Final Listing, 77 FR 20948-20986.
Blue Butterfly as Endangered.
Endangered Throughout
Its Range; Listing of
the Cassius Blue,
Ceraunus Blue, and
Nickerbean Blue
Butterflies as
Threatened Due to
Similarity of
Appearance to the
Miami Blue Butterfly
in Coastal South and
Central Florida.
4/12/2012.................. 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 77 FR 21920-21936.
Petition to List Petition Finding,
Either the Eastern Substantial.
Population or the
Southern Rocky
Mountain Population
of the Boreal Toad as
an Endangered or
Threatened Distinct
Population Segment.
4/17/2012.................. Determination of Final Listing, 77 FR 23060-23092.
Endangered Status for Endangered and
Three Forks Threatened.
Springsnail and
Threatened Status for
San Bernardino
Springsnail
Throughout Their
Ranges and
Designation of
Critical Habitat for
Both Species.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our expeditious progress also includes work on listing actions that
we funded in previous fiscal years and in FY 2012 but have not yet been
completed to date. These actions are listed below. Actions in the top
section of the table are being conducted under a deadline set by a
court through a court order or settlement agreement. The Service had
already begun to implement our work plan submitted as part of the MDL
settlement case (see above) last FY and we continue to work on these
actions. Many of these initial actions in our work plan include work on
proposed rules for candidate species with an LPN of 2 or 3. As
discussed above, selection of the order in which
[[Page 27402]]
these species are worked on is partially based on available staff
resources, and when appropriate, include species with a lower priority
if they overlap geographically or have the same threats as the species
with the high priority. Including these species together in the same
proposed rule results in considerable savings in time and funding, when
compared to preparing separate proposed rules for each of them in the
future. Actions in the lower section of the table are being conducted
to meet statutory timelines, that is, timelines required under the Act.
Actions Funded in Previous FYs and in FY 2012 But Not Yet Completed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 parrot species (military macaw, 12-month petition finding.
yellow-billed parrot, scarlet
macaw) \5\.
20 Maui-Nui candidate species \2\ Proposed listing.
(17 plants, 3 tree snails) (14
with LPN = 2, 2 with LPN = 3, 3
with LPN = 8).
Umtanum buckwheat (LPN = 2) and Proposed listing.
white bluffs bladderpod (LPN =
9) \4\.
Grotto sculpin (LPN = 2) \4\..... Proposed listing.
2 Arkansas mussels (Neosho mucket Proposed listing.
(LPN = 2) & Rabbitsfoot (LPN =
9)) \4\.
Diamond darter (LPN = 2) \4\..... Proposed listing.
Gunnison sage-grouse (LPN = 2) Proposed listing.
\4\.
Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Proposed listing.
Beetle (LPN = 2) \5\.
Lesser prairie chicken (LPN = 2). Proposed listing.
4 Texas salamanders (Austin blind Proposed listing.
salamander (LPN = 2), Salado
salamander (LPN = 2), Georgetown
salamander (LPN = 8), Jollyville
Plateau (LPN = 8)) \3\.
West Texas aquatics (Gonzales Proposed listing.
Spring Snail (LPN = 2), Diamond
Y springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom
springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom
Cave snail (LPN = 2), Diminutive
amphipod (LPN = 2)) \3\.
2 Texas plants (Texas golden Proposed listing.
gladecress (Leavenworthia
texana) (LPN = 2), Neches River
rose-mallow (Hibiscus dasycalyx)
(LPN = 2)) \3\.
4 AZ plants (Acuna cactus Proposed listing.
(Echinomastus erectocentrus var.
acunensis) (LPN = 3), Fickeisen
plains cactus (Pediocactus
peeblesianus fickeiseniae) (LPN
= 3), Lemmon fleabane (Erigeron
lemmonii) (LPN = 8), Gierisch
mallow (Sphaeralcea gierischii)
(LPN = 2)) \5\.
FL bonneted bat (LPN = 2) \3\.... Proposed listing.
3 Southern FL plants (Florida Proposed listing.
semaphore cactus (Consolea
corallicola) (LPN = 2),
shellmound applecactus (Harrisia
(= Cereus) aboriginum (=
gracilis)) (LPN = 2), Cape Sable
thoroughwort (Chromolaena
frustrata) (LPN = 2)) \5\.
21 Big Island (HI) species \5\ Proposed listing.
(includes 8 candidate species--6
plants & 2 animals; 4 with LPN =
2, 1 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN =
4, 2 with LPN = 8).
12 Puget Sound prairie species (9 Proposed listing.
subspecies of pocket gopher
(Thomomys mazama ssp.) (LPN =
3), streaked horned lark (LPN =
3), Taylor's checkerspot (LPN =
3), Mardon skipper (LPN = 8))
\3\.
2 TN River mussels (fluted Proposed listing.
kidneyshell (LPN = 2), slabside
pearlymussel (LPN = 2)) \5\.
Jemez Mountain salamander (LPN = Proposed listing.
2) \5\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions With Statutory Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Bird species from Colombia and Final listing determination.
Ecuador.
Queen Charlotte goshawk.......... Final listing determination.
6 Birds from Peru & Bolivia...... Final listing determination.
Loggerhead sea turtle (assist Final listing determination.
National Marine Fisheries
Service) \5\.
Platte River caddisfly (from 206 12-month petition finding.
species petition) \5\.
Ashy storm-petrel \5\............ 12-month petition finding.
Honduran emerald................. 12-month petition finding.
Eagle Lake trout \1\............. 90-day petition finding.
Spring Mountains checkerspot 90-day petition finding.
butterfly.
Aztec gilia \5\.................. 90-day petition finding.
White-tailed ptarmigan \5\....... 90-day petition finding.
Bicknell's thrush \5\............ 90-day petition finding.
Sonoran talussnail \5\........... 90-day petition finding.
2 AZ Sky Island plants 90-day petition finding.
(Graptopetalum bartrami & Pectis
imberbis) \5\.
Desert massasauga................ 90-day petition finding.
Alexander Archipelago wolf \5\... 90-day petition finding.
Eastern diamondback rattlesnake.. 90-day petition finding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in
previous FYs.
\2\ Although funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided
in FY 2008 or 2009, due to the complexity of these actions and
competing priorities, these actions are still being developed.
\3\ Partially funded with FY 2010 funds and FY 2011 funds.
\4\ Funded with FY 2010 funds.
\5\ Funded with FY 2011 funds.
We have endeavored to make our listing actions as efficient and
timely as possible, given the requirements of the relevant law and
regulations, and constraints relating to workload and personnel. We are
continually considering ways to streamline processes or achieve
economies of scale, such as by batching related actions together. Given
our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the Act, these actions
described above collectively constitute expeditious progress.
The Arapahoe snowfly will be added to the list of candidate species
upon publication of this 12-month finding. We will continue to monitor
the status
[[Page 27403]]
of this species as new information becomes available. This review will
determine if a change in status is warranted, including the need to
make prompt use of emergency listing procedures.
We intend that any proposed listing action for the Arapahoe snowfly
will be as accurate as possible. Therefore, we will continue to accept
additional information and comments from all concerned governmental
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested
party concerning this finding.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Colorado Field
Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the
Colorado Field Office and the Mountain-Prairie Regional Office.
Authority
The authority for this section is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: May 1, 2012.
David L. Cottingham,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-11229 Filed 5-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P