[Federal Register: July 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 129)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 32514-32521]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08jy09-33]
[[Page 32514]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R6-ES-2009-0025; MO 922105 0083 - B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition to List the Susan's purse-making caddisfly (Ochrotrichia
susanae) as Threatened or Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list the Susan's purse-making caddisfly
(Ochrotrichia susanae) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the petition
presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that listing the Susan's purse-making caddisfly may be warranted.
Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a
status review of the species to determine if listing the species is
warranted. To ensure that the review is comprehensive, we are
soliciting scientific and commercial data and other information
regarding this species.
DATES: We made the finding announced in this document on July 8, 2009.
To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request that we
receive data and information on or before September 8, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Search for docket FWS-R6-ES-2009-0025 and follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2009-0025; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all information received on http://
www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Information Solicited
section below for more details).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia S. Gelatt, Western Colorado
Supervisor, Western Colorado Field Office, 764 Horizon Drive, Building
B, Grand Junction, CO 81506-3946, by telephone (970-243-2778, extension
29), or by facsimile (970-245-6933). Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Solicited
When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are
required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. To
ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best
available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting
information concerning the status of the Susan's purse-making
caddisfly. We request information from the public, other concerned
governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific
community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning the
status of the Susan's purse-making caddisfly. We are seeking
information regarding:
(1) The historical and current status and distribution of the
Susan's purse-making caddisfly, its biology and ecology, and ongoing
conservation measures for the species and its habitat; and
(2) Information relevant to the factors that are the basis for
making a listing determination for a species under section 4(a) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), which are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the species' habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence and threats to the species or its habitat.
If we determine that listing the Susan's purse-making caddisfly is
warranted, it is our intent to propose critical habitat to the maximum
extent prudent and determinable at the time we propose to list the
species. Therefore, with regard to areas within the geographical range
currently occupied by the Susan's purse-making caddisfly, we also
request data and information on what may constitute physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species, where
these features are currently found, and whether any of these features
may require special management considerations or protection. In
addition, we request data and information regarding whether there are
areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species that are
essential to the conservation of the species. Please provide specific
comments and information as to what, if any, critical habitat you think
we should propose for designation if the species is proposed for
listing, and why such habitat meets the requirements of the Act.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.'' Based on the status review, we will issue
a 12-month finding on the petition, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B)
of the Act.
You may submit your information concerning this status review by
one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section.
If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this personal identifying
information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we
will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://
www.regulations.gov. Please include sufficient information with your
comments to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information
you include.
Information and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this finding, will be available for
public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment
during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Western Colorado Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, requires that we make a finding on
whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on
[[Page 32515]]
information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted
with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files. To
the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90
days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the
finding promptly in the Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial information within the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is ``that
amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe
that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted'' (50 CFR
424.14(b)). If we find that substantial scientific or commercial
information was presented, we are required to promptly commence a
status review of the species.
On July 8, 2008, we received a petition via e-mail from the Xerces
Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Dr. Boris C. Kondratieff
(Colorado State University), Western Watersheds Project, WildEarth
Guardians, and Center for Native Ecosystems requesting that the Susan's
purse-making caddisfly be listed as endangered under the Act and
critical habitat be designated. The petition clearly identified itself
as such and included the requisite identification information for the
petitioners, as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). In an August 5, 2008,
letter to the petitioners, we responded that we had reviewed the
petition and determined that an emergency listing was not necessary. We
also stated that due to court orders and settlement agreements for
other listing and critical habitat actions, all of our fiscal year 2008
listing funds had been allocated and that further work on the petition
would not take place until fiscal year 2009.
Species Information
The Susan's purse-making caddisfly is a small, hairy, brown
caddisfly in the family Hydroptilidae. Adult forewings are 2
millimeters (mm) (0.08 inch (in.)) in length and are dark brown with
three transverse silver bands, one each at the wing base, the wing
midline, and the wing apex (Flint and Herrmann 1976, p. 894).
The larvae of Hydroptilidae are unusual among the case-making
families of Trichoptera in that they are free-living until the final
(fifth) larval instar (developmental stage between molts) (Wiggins
1996, p. 72). When the larvae molt to the fifth instar, they develop
enlarged abdomens, build purse-shaped cases from silk and sand, and
become less active (Wiggins 1996, p. 71). They construct a case which
can be portable or cemented to the substrate (Wiggins 1996, p. 71).
Larvae in this family are very small but can reach up to 6 mm (0.3 in.)
(Wiggins 1996, p. 71). The head and the dorsal surface (top) of all
three thoracic segments are dark brown and sclerotized (hardened)
(Flint and Herrmann 1976, p. 894). Larval cases are small, flattened,
bivalved, and open at each end, similar to other members of the genus
Ochrotrichia. However, the Susan's purse-making caddisfly larval cases
are slightly shorter proportionally and are made from smaller grains of
sand (Flint and Herrmann 1976, p. 894). The larvae eventually pupate
within the case.
Feeding behavior of the Susan's purse-making caddisfly larvae has
not been observed directly, but larvae in this genus generally feed by
scraping diatoms from rocks (Wiggins 1996, p. 96). Where the species
has been collected, rocks that were thickly covered with larval cases
were also associated with heavy growths of filamentous algae and moss
(Flint and Herrmann 1976, p. 897).
Adult Trichoptera have reduced mouthparts and lack mandibles, but
can ingest liquids. The adult flight period was estimated to be from
late June to early August by Flint and Herrmann (1976, p. 897),
although adults were collected from mid-April to late July in a later
survey (Herrmann et al. 1986, p. 433). The Susan's purse-making
caddisfly is thought to produce one generation per year (Flint and
Herrmann 1976, p. 897).
Taxonomy
The Susan's purse-making caddisfly was first described by Flint and
Herrmann (1976, pp. 894-898) from specimens taken in 1974 at Trout
Creek in Chaffee County, Colorado. The genus Ochrotrichia is widespread
and fairly diverse in North America, with over 50 described species
(Wiggins 1996, p. 96). Adults can be distinguished from other species
in the genus Ochrotrichia based on characteristics of the genitalia.
Historic and Current Distribution
From 1974 to 1994, the Susan's purse-making caddisfly was only
known to exist at and below Trout Creek Spring on U.S. Forest Service
(USFS) land in Chaffee County, Colorado. Larvae, pupae, and adults were
collected at the spring outfall area and as far downstream in Trout
Creek as ~130 meters (m) (430 feet (ft)). Trout Creek Spring is at an
elevation of about 2,750 m (9,020 ft). A review of specimens collected
in Colorado prior to 1987 determined that the Susan's purse-making
caddisfly was still found only in the type locality (location type
where first found) (Herrmann et al. 1986, p. 433).
In 1995, specimens were collected at a new site, High Creek Fen in
Park County, Colorado, about 27 air kilometers (17 air miles) north of
the type locality (Durfee and Polonsky 1995, pp. 1, 5, 7). High Creek
Fen is a unique groundwater-fed wetland with high ecological diversity;
it is considered a rare type of habitat and the southernmost example of
this type of ecosystem in North America (Cooper 1996 pp. 1801, 1808;
Rocchio 2005, p. 10; Legg 2007, p. 1). High Creek Fen is primarily
owned by The Nature Conservancy TNC) and the Colorado State Land Board,
as well as private landowners.
Status
The Susan's purse-making caddisfly has a Global Heritage Status
Rank of G2, a National Status Rank of N2, and a Colorado State Rank of
S2 (NatureServe 2008, pp. 1-4). NatureServe defines the G2 rank as
signifying that a species is imperiled (at a high risk of extinction)
globally due to a very restricted range, very few populations, steep
population declines, or other factors. The N2 and S2 ranks are assigned
based upon the same factors, and species in these categories are
defined as vulnerable to extirpation nationally or within a state or
province. In the case of the Susan's purse-making caddisfly, if it is
extirpated in Colorado, it will mean the species is extinct. No
population estimates exist for the Susan's purse-making caddisfly, but
it is only known to occur at Trout Creek Spring and High Creek Fen.
Habitat Requirements
Physical and chemical conditions of the type locality spring were
assessed when the Susan's purse-making caddisfly was first collected
and described (Flint and Herrmann 1976, pp. 894-897). The results
suggested that this species has a relatively narrow set of ecological
requirements. Water temperatures in the spring habitat were cold and
varied little (14.4 to 15.8 \o\Celsius (\o\C)) (57.9 to 60.4
\o\Farenheit (\o\F)). Stream conditions included extremely high levels
of dissolved oxygen (at or near 100 percent saturation), as well as
high concentrations of dissolved calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), and
sulfate (SO4), which gave the water a higher electrical
conductance value than typically seen in most regional streams at the
same elevation. It is unknown at this time if this is significant to
the species. Overall, larvae appear to inhabit waters in small streams
that are cold, well-oxygenated,
[[Page 32516]]
highly buffered, and low in trace metals. Larvae and pupae were
collected primarily from the sides of rocks in both the spring outfall
and the downstream locations, especially in areas directly below small
waterfalls in the creek, and were often clustered in clumps that
covered the rocks (Flint and Herrmann 1976, pp. 894-897). High Creek
Fen appears to have similar water quality as Trout Creek Spring (Durfee
and Polonsky 1995, p. 5; Cooper 1996, pp. 801, 803).
Five-Factor Evaluation
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 424)
set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species or subspecies
may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one
or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment
of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or
predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E)
other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information
regarding the Susan's purse-making caddisfly as presented in the
petition is substantial, thereby indicating that the petitioned action
may be warranted. Our evaluation of this information is presented
below. We did not have any information on this species prior to
receiving the petition. Most, but not all, references cited in the
petition were provided to us by the petitioners. We were able to locate
most of the additional references cited in the petition that were not
included with the petition.
A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
the Species' Habitat or Range
The petitioners state that the primary threats to the survival of
the Susan's purse-making caddisfly are impairment and destruction of
their restricted habitat due to livestock grazing and logging-related
activities. They also point out potential threats to the Susan's purse-
making caddisfly by dewatering of its habitat, road sedimentation, and
recreation, including hiking, camping, and off-road vehicle (ORV) use.
Livestock Grazing
The petitioners believe that the Trout Creek Spring area is being
impacted by grazing and will continue to be impacted by livestock
grazing around and upstream of the spring area. The USFS 2007 Draft
Environmental Assessment for the Rangeland Allotment Management
Planning on the Salida-Leadville-South Park Planning Area (Draft
Grazing EA) was cited by the petitioners as documentation for grazing
impacts. The petitioners believe the spring and section of Trout Creek
occupied by the Susan's purse-making caddisfly are in the Chubb
Allotment, but maps in the Draft Grazing EA are unclear. In addition,
the spring and occupied section of Trout Creek may be in the Four-mile
Allotment. When we conduct a 12-month finding on the Susan's purse-
making caddisfly, we will obtain accurate location information from the
USFS. If the Susan's purse-making caddisfly is in the Four-mile
Allotment, activities within either the Chubb or Four-mile allotment
could have impacts on the caddisfly and its habitat through vegetation
removal or through erosion and contribution of sediment to the stream.
If the Susan's purse-making caddisfly and its habitat are only in the
Chubb Allotment, only activities in the Chubb Allotment will affect the
caddisfly, since it is upstream of the Four-mile Allotment.
The petitioners cite references stating that livestock grazing
creates greater erosion potential due to removal of riparian and upland
vegetation, removal of soil litter, increased soil compaction via
trampling, and increased area of bare ground (Schultz and Leininger
1990, pp. 297-298; Fleischner 1994, pp. 631-636). The Draft Grazing EA
states that upland bench and transition areas on State-owned lands in
the Chubb Allotment have higher than expected bare ground with some
nonnative plant species and some willow die-back in the riparian zone,
possibly due to drought (USFS 2007a, p. 10). The petition states that
most of the accessible forage in the Chubb Allotment is in riparian
areas. The petitioners also cite references that negative effects of
livestock grazing can frequently be magnified in riparian ecosystems,
as cattle tend to congregate in these areas for the abundant forage,
shade, and water (Roath and Krueger 1982, pp. 101-102; Gillen et al.
1984, pp. 551-552; Chaney et al. 1993, pp. 6, 15).
The Draft Grazing EA states that in grassland areas within the
Four-mile Allotment there is evidence of drought throughout the
allotment and high incidence of bare ground (USFS 2007a, p. 11).
However, the riparian area in the Four-mile Allotment appears to be in
good shape with the exception of cottonwood regeneration (USFS 2007a,
p. 11).
The petitioners believe that continued grazing will likely increase
the severity of these identified problems. Bare, compacted soils allow
less water infiltration, which generates more surface runoff and can
contribute to erosion as well as flooding and stream bank alterations
(Abdel-Magid et al. 1987, pp. 304-305; Orodho et al. 1990, pp. 9-11;
Chaney et al. 1993, pp. 8-15). Increased erosion leads to higher
sediment loads in nearby waters, degrading habitat and increasing water
turbidity. The petitioners believe these problems will be exacerbated
by removal of riparian vegetation by livestock, as a riparian buffer
helps filter overland runoff, slow flooding, and stabilize stream
banks. The petition states that areas of bare ground also can
facilitate the colonization and spread of invasive species, further
reducing riparian vegetation quality. Seeds and propagules of such
weeds and noxious species can be introduced by livestock via their fur,
hooves, or dung. The petitioners believe that livestock grazing in and
upstream of the area around the type of springs utilized by the Susan's
purse-making caddisfly has the potential to result in habitat
degradation and destruction due to the impacts stated above.
The petitioners believe that the combined impacts of vegetation
loss, soil compaction, stream bank destabilization, and increased
sedimentation associated with intensive livestock grazing can have a
profound effect on aquatic macroinvertebrates. The petition cites a 4-
year study, conducted in a mountain stream in northeastern Oregon,
which found a dramatic decline in macroinvertebrate abundance and
species richness for some taxa, including caddisflies, on grazed versus
ungrazed sites (McIver and McInnis 2007, pp. 293, 300-301). The
petition also states that a variety of aquatic macroinvertebrate
community attributes relating to taxa diversity, community balance,
trophic status, and pollution tolerance were strongly negatively
impacted by moderate or heavy grazing in small mountain streams in
Virginia, compared to lightly grazed or ungrazed control areas (Braccia
and Voshell 2007, pp. 196-198).
The petitioners believe that the habitat around Trout Creek Spring
is currently subject to reduced riparian vegetation and that continued
grazing around Trout Creek Spring will further remove riparian
vegetation, reducing the shading canopy and leading to rising water
temperatures and lower dissolved oxygen levels. The Susan's purse-
[[Page 32517]]
making caddisfly requires cold, fast-running, well-oxygenated water
(Flint and Herrmann 1976, p. 897), and the petitioners believe the
species is likely to be negatively impacted by decreased riparian
vegetation, stream bank destabilization, and increases in water
temperature brought on by grazing.
Hazardous Fuel Reduction Activities
The petitioners state that the Trout Creek area may be impacted by
a logging and hazardous fuel reduction project called the North Trout
Creek Forest Health and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Project (Fuel
Reduction Project), which will treat approximately 3,500 hectares (ha)
(8,700 acres (ac)) with salvage logging, thinning, and prescribed fire
to reduce hazardous fuel loads. The North Trout Creek Forest Health and
Hazardous Fuel Reduction Final Economic Analysis (Fuel Reduction EA)
for the project is dated February 2007 (USFS 2007b, pp. 1-143 + maps),
with a Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact signed on
April 3, 2007 (USFS 2007c, pp. 1-25). The Salida Ranger district has
also recently instituted a new Federal Business Opportunity (FBO)
program adjacent to the North Trout Creek project area called Ranch of
the Rockies (USFS 2007d, pp. 1-3), which involves 35 ha (86 ac) in the
Trout Creek Pass area. This timber sale project involves skidding and
yarding live and dead trees and piling the resulting slash. The
petitioners state that roads and prescribed fire related to logging and
hazardous fuels reduction can impact the Susan's purse-making
caddisfly.
The Fuel Reduction EA states that upland areas on bench and
transition areas in the Chubb Allotment have localized areas of bare
ground with some nonnative plant species and some willow die-back in
the riparian zone, possibly due to drought (USFS 2007b, p. 35). The
Fuel Reduction EA states that in grassland and in bench and transition
areas within the Four-mile Allotment, evidence of drought occurs
throughout the allotment and a high incidence of bare ground with
invading nonnative plants occurs. The Fuel Reduction EA also states
that the riparian area in the Four-mile Allotment appears to be in good
shape with the exception of cottonwood regeneration (USFS 2007b, p.
36).
Logging Roads
The petitioners cite Cederholm et al. (1980, p. 25), who state that
disturbance associated with logging road construction and operation is
a significant source of sediment load in streams. Similar to the
effects of livestock grazing on aquatic habitats, roads remove
vegetation, compact soil (reducing water infiltration), increase
erosion and sedimentation, increase the amount and pattern of surface
runoff, introduce contaminants, and facilitate the spread of invasive
plant species (Anderson 1996, pp. 1-13; Forman and Alexander 1998, pp.
210, 216-221; Jones et al. 2000, pp. 77-82; Trombulak and Frissell
2000, pp. 19, 24; Gucinski et al. 2001, pp. 12-15, 22-32, 40-42;
Angermeier et al. 2004, pp. 19-24). The cumulative effects on streams
include increases in siltation, increases in nonpoint source pollution,
increases in water temperatures, and decreases in dissolved oxygen
levels.
The petition states that unpaved roads are a primary source of
sediment in forested watersheds (Sugden and Woods 2007, p. 193). The
Fuel Reduction EA does not propose to create new permanent roads, but
would allow creation of about 10 kilometers (km) (6 miles (mi)) of new
temporary roads and reopen 16 km (10 mi) of existing closed roads (USFS
2007b, p. 83). The sediment yield from construction of temporary roads
and reopening of closed roads associated with the Fuel Reduction
Project is estimated to be 41.2 tons/year, with 9.3 times greater
sediment load in the Trout Creek watershed predicted from the action
versus no action alternatives (USFS 2007b, p. 83). The petition states
that even the use of temporary roads can have a long-term effect on
soil compaction, as studies conducted in California indicated that soil
in logging skid trails that had not been used in 40 years remained 20
percent more compacted than soil in nearby areas that were not used as
skid trails (Vora 1988, pp. 117, 119).
Prescribed Fire
The petition states that, in addition to logging activities, the
Fuel Reduction Project involves prescribed burns (USFS 2007b, map 2.3),
and the Ranch of the Rockies timber sale project (USFS 2007d, pp. 1-3)
involves burning piles of slash. The petition states that regular burns
conducted around the area of Trout Creek Spring could have a negative
impact on stream quality, because burning has been shown to affect
aquatic habitats and watersheds in a variety of ways (Neary et al.
2005, pp. 1-250). For instance, mechanical site preparation and road
construction needed to conduct prescribed burns can lead to increased
erosion and sediment production, especially on steep terrain. Removal
of leaf litter from the soil surface through burning can lead to
reduced water infiltration into the soil, increasing the amount of
surface runoff into streams. Additionally, ash depositions following a
fire can affect the pH of water. Negative impacts may be exacerbated by
burning slash piles, since the fire intensity is greater when the fuel
is piled in a small area which can have a stronger impact on the
underlying soil.
The petitioners believe that cumulative effects of increased
erosion, increased sedimentation, and nonpoint source pollution from
prescribed fire associated with logging activities in the area near the
Susan's purse-making caddisfly habitat are likely to have a serious
deleterious effect on this species. However, the petitioners provide no
information to quantify the magnitude of potential cumulative effects
from these activities.
Dewatering of Spring Habitats
The petition states that Trout Creek Spring is not currently
proposed for livestock water development, but several other water
developments exist and are being pursued in the Chubb Park area. The
petitioners believe the development of numerous springs in the area
could affect the hydrology of remaining springs and streams, in
addition to reducing potential new habitat for the Susan's purse-making
caddisfly colonization. The petition states that reduction of stream
flow due to increased groundwater use and water diversion can have a
dramatic impact on stream habitat and associated macroinvertebrate
communities. The petition states that a range of studies examined in a
review of the subject by Dewson et al. (2007, pp. 401-411) indicated
that artificial flow reductions frequently lead to changes such as
decreased water depth and increased sedimentation, as well as altered
water temperature and water chemistry, thereby reducing or influencing
macroinvertebrate numbers, richness, competition, predation, and other
interactions. The petitioners believe the restricted distribution and
narrow habitat requirements of the Susan's purse-making caddisfly make
it likely that human-induced alterations in stream hydrology and water
chemistry will have a negative impact on this species.
High Creek Fen, where the second known population of the Susan's
purse-making caddisfly exists, is part of a 485-ha (1,200-ac) preserve
owned and managed by TNC. The petition states that Park County, where
the preserve is located, has experienced significant population
increases since the 1990s, and is currently considered one of the
fastest-growing counties in Colorado
[[Page 32518]]
(Miller and Ortiz 2007, p. 2). Population growth in this area is
accompanied by an increased demand for fresh drinking water. In 2000,
89 percent of the population of Park County received water from
groundwater sources (Miller and Ortiz 2007, p. 2). The area surrounding
High Creek Fen is currently being protected, but the fen itself is fed
by groundwater sources. The petitioners believe sustained or increasing
groundwater removal to support increased human development is likely to
have a deleterious effect on the hydrology of this vulnerable habitat
and the unique plant and invertebrate species it supports, including
the Susan's purse-making caddisfly. However, the petitioners provide no
information to quantify the magnitude or temporal aspect of potential
effects from this activity.
Roads
In addition to roads associated with timber-related projects as
described above, the petition states that the springs utilized by the
Susan's purse-making caddisfly are impacted by Highway 285 and Forest
Road 309 (USFS 2007b, map 2.3).
Highway 285, which receives heavy traffic, runs within a few
hundred meters (several hundred feet) of Trout Creek Spring. The
petition states that roads accumulate a variety of contaminants
including brake dust, heavy metals, and organic pollutants, which are
carried directly into streams by overland runoff (Forman and Alexander
1998, pp. 219-221; Trombulak and Frissell 2000, pp. 19, 22-24; Gucinski
et al. 2001, pp. 40-42). Forest Road 309, which is immediately above
the spring, receives periodic maintenance, including grading, which,
the petition states, can increase the rate of erosion and deliver
increased silt loads to the type locality spring and stream (Gucinski
et al. 2001, pp. 12-15).
Recreation
The petition states that population growth in and around the
project area has led to increased numbers of recreational users. The
pressure of recreational users is likely to remain high, because the
population growth this area has experienced in recent years is expected
to continue. The population of Chaffee County increased 28.1 percent
from 1990 to 2000, with much of the growth occurring in unincorporated
areas, and the population of Colorado is expected to increase by about
50 percent within the next 20 to 25 years (Chaffee County Comprehensive
Plan 2000, p. 10).
Camping and Hiking
The petition states that the Chubb Park area is a popular site for
outdoor enthusiasts, and is a year-round destination for hunting,
mountain biking, scenic drives, bird watching, hiking, and camping.
Population increases in the region also have increased the numbers of
regular local users, and recreational use is likely to continue to
intensify, based on national trends. A study of outdoor recreation
trends in the United States (Cordell et al. 1999, pp. 219-321) found
increases in participation in most of the activities surveyed, which
included bicycling, primitive or developed area camping, birdwatching,
hiking, backpacking, and snowmobiling.
The petitioners believe intensified human activities in and around
natural areas will have unavoidable negative impacts on habitat. For
example, the petitioners state that unauthorized trails have been
created by hikers along streams in the area around Trout Creek Spring.
In addition, hikers may intentionally or through negligence leave gates
open that are intended to restrict livestock from riparian areas or
from grazed pastures that are being rested. Direct damage to Trout
Creek Spring is possible, as it is a desirable water source for campers
(USFS 2007e, p. 2). The petition states that increased human passage to
the spring to obtain water could damage the riparian zone and disturb
habitat. In addition, if campers use the spring to wash themselves or
their cookware, the water quality of the spring could be negatively
impacted by detergents. The petitioners believe that the activities of
large numbers of recreational users could damage the integrity of the
habitat of the Susan's purse-making caddisfly through trampling and
removal of riparian vegetation, compacting soil, creating ruts and bare
ground across portions of upland and riparian zones, and lowering water
quality.
Off-Road Vehicle Use in Non-designated Areas
The petition states that unauthorized off-road vehicle (ORV) and
motorcycle usage and impacts have been documented in the Trout Creek
watershed and around the Trout Creek Spring type locality (Teves and
Stednick 2005, pp. 14, 19; USFS 2007e, pp. 2-3). The petition states
that on the national level, ORV usage has risen substantially; the
number of people who reported engaging in ORV activities rose by 8
million individuals between 1982 and 1995, and an increase of 16
percent nationally is anticipated during the next 50 years (Bowker et
al. 1999, pp. 339-340; Garber-Yonts 2005, p. 30). ORV use in the Trout
Creek watershed is extensive, and as much as 80 percent of the trails
in some areas have been created illegally (Teves and Stednick 2005, p.
14). The petitioners believe illegal ORV use can negatively impact
conditions in riparian areas through damage to riparian vegetation and
stream banks, leading to increased sedimentation.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition
We reviewed the petition, the references included with the
petition, and the references cited by the petitioners that we were able
to locate. The petition documents that grazing occurs upstream and
immediately around Trout Creek Spring, and presents information that
demonstrates that grazing is currently having deleterious effects on
the Susan's purse-making caddisfly habitat and vegetation surrounding
the stream and wetland areas where the caddisfly occurs. The Draft
Grazing EA states that the Chubb Allotment has livestock concentrating
in low lying areas, infrastructure is not adequate to control
livestock, hoof action is causing bank trampling and plant pedestalling
in the riparian area, and there is a need to maintain or improve the
riparian area (USFS 2007a, p. 22). For the Four-mile Allotment, the
Draft Grazing EA states that infrastructure is not adequate to control
livestock, and there is a need to maintain or improve riparian areas
(USFS 2007a, p. 22). Furthermore, the USFS Sensitive Species
designation for the Susan's purse-making caddisfly points out that
grazing cannot be discounted as a threat (USFS 2007e, p. 2).
Effects from large-scale or intense burns, and from the
construction of new logging roads, may be occurring. According to a map
in the Fuel Reduction EA (USFS 2007b, map 2.3), no prescribed burns
will occur immediately around or upstream of Trout Creek Spring, but
burns higher up in the watershed, in the Chubb Park area, could add
sediment from the burning and thinning activities. The Fuel Reduction
EA states that 9.3 times greater sediment load in the Trout Creek
watershed is expected from the action alternative relative to the no
action alternative (USFS 2007b, p. 83). We could find no evidence that
the Ranch of the Rockies timber sale (USFS 2007d, pp. 1-3) would
involve burning. Nonetheless, the creation of temporary roads and skid
trails in the Ranch of the Rockies timber sale area could further
[[Page 32519]]
increase sedimentation. The Fuel Reduction EA did not contain a
description of the timeline for the prescribed burns or thin and burn
projects, other than a statement that treatments would occur at various
intervals (USFS 2007b, p. 55). If burns and thinning treatments are
placed too closely together in either time or space, we believe
increased impacts from sedimentation could occur.
Although the Draft Grazing EA does not contain concrete statements
that further water development will occur for grazing purposes, water
development for grazing purposes is listed as an option in several
places both on Chubb and Four-mile allotments and as a standard
practice throughout the planning area (USFS 2007a, pp. 47, 50, 54). The
Draft Grazing EA states that no stock water is available in uplands to
draw cattle away from low lying areas within the Chubb Allotment (USFS
2007a, p. 22). Similarly, the Draft Grazing EA states that limited
stock water is available in uplands to draw cattle away from low lying
areas within the Four-mile Allotment (USFS 2007a, p. 22). Furthermore,
surface water or groundwater depletions farther upstream in the High
Creek watershed could impact the Susan's purse-making caddisfly at High
Creek Fen. We find that there is only speculative information provided
in the petition regarding future water development in either area.
Trout Creek Spring is located in a very narrow corridor between
Highway 285 and Forest Road 309. As documented in some studies (Forman
and Alexander 1998, pp. 219-221; Trombulak and Frissell 2000, pp 19,
22-24; Gucinski et al. 2001, pp. 12-15, 40-42) and mentioned in the
Fuel Reduction EA (USFS 2007b, p. 83), it is likely that erosion and
increased sediment load will occur as a result of maintenance and use
of the roads. Contaminant impacts from road salts and vehicles could
occur, but the petition provided little information on these particular
impacts.
According to the USFS Sensitive Species designation, ORV use has
been documented to impact the habitat around Trout Creek Spring (USFS
2007e, pp. 2-3). The Sensitive Species designation also states that
dispersed recreation could be an impact, but this appears to be less
certain. Portions of the Four-mile Allotment apparently have high
recreational use (USFS 2007a, p. 22) but it is not clear if high
recreational use occurs around Trout Creek Spring. The petition did not
indicate that recreational use at High Creek Fen was a threat.
Overall, we find that the petition presents substantial information
indicating that listing the Susan's purse-making caddisfly may be
warranted based on the present or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of the species' habitat or range through impacts of
livestock grazing, erosion and sedimentation from logging roads, and
sedimentation from prescribed fire activities. We find that the
petition does not present substantial information indicating that
listing the Susan's purse-making caddisfly may be warranted based on
impacts from dewatering of spring habitats; contaminant runoff from
existing roads; erosion and sediment impacts from existing roads; or
recreational impacts from ORV use, camping, or hiking at either Trout
Creek or High Creek Fen.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The petitioners believe that because this species is so rare,
collection is a potential threat. The petitioners state that, in
general, because of the high fecundity of insects, the collection of
insects typically poses little threat to their populations. However, in
the case of the Susan's purse-making caddisfly, where it is restricted
to only two small sites, the petitioners believe that collection of
individuals for scientific or educational purposes could significantly
reduce production of offspring and affect the species.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition
The Susan's purse-making caddisfly occupies only two small sites,
so overutilization could easily occur if people wanted to collect the
caddisfly. However, the petitioners provided no evidence that
overutilization has been or will be a threat to the Susan's purse-
making caddisfly. Consequently, the petition does not provide
substantial information indicating that listing the Susan's purse-
making caddisfly may be warranted due to overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.
C. Disease or Predation
The petitioners state that neither disease nor predation appear to
be a threat to the Susan's purse-making caddisfly. However, they state
that little is known about the life history and ecology of the Susan's
purse-making caddisfly, and threats from disease or predation have
never been assessed. They also state that small size of the only two
known populations of the Susan's purse-making caddisfly makes this
species more vulnerable to extinction as a result of normal population
fluctuations due to predation or disease.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition
The Susan's purse-making caddisfly may be more vulnerable to
extinction from disease or predation as a result of its small
population size. However, the petitioners present no evidence of
current disease or predation problems, nor do they provide information
to link this to a potential problem in the future. Consequently, the
petition does not provide substantial information indicating that
listing the Susan's purse-making caddisfly may be warranted due to
disease or predation.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The petitioners state that the Susan's purse-making caddisfly
receives no Federal or State protection. It is listed as USFS Region 2
sensitive species (USFS 2007e, pp. 1-3), but the petitioners state that
potential impacts to the Susan's purse-making caddisfly from the Fuels
Reduction Project (USFS 2007b, p. 48), grazing management through the
Draft Grazing EA (USFS 2007a, p. 108), and the Ranch of the Rockies
timber sale project (USFS 2007d, pp. 1-3) were not addressed. The
petitioners believe that multiple, ongoing grazing and fuel reduction
projects in and around the areas where the Susan's purse-making
caddisfly is found will continue to impair existing and potential
spring habitat for this restricted species.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition
We reviewed portions of the Fuel Reduction EA (USFS 2007b, p. 48)
and found that the Susan's purse-making caddisfly was not addressed. We
also reviewed portions of the Draft Grazing EA and found that the
Susan's purse-making caddisfly was not mentioned (USFS 2007a, p. 108).
As the Sensitive Species designation points out (USFS 2007e, p. 2),
grazing cannot be discounted as a threat. Consequently, if the USFS is
not addressing grazing or other impacts immediately around Trout Creek
Spring and Trout Creek, or giving greater consideration to actions
upstream affecting water quality and quantity, we do not believe that
sensitive species designation constitutes an adequate regulatory
mechanism to protect the species and its habitat. TNC and Colorado
State Land Board own a majority of the land around High Creek Fen,
which helps to protect the fen. However, the petitioners did not
[[Page 32520]]
provide specific land protection information regarding measures that
either of these entities may be taking to protect the fen.
Due to lack of evidence of apparent Federal protection, we conclude
that the petition presents substantial information indicating that
listing the Susan's purse-making caddisfly may be warranted based on
inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms. The petition did not provide
any information regarding State or non-governmental regulatory
mechanisms, nor do we have any information in our files.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued
Existence
Small Population Size and Stochastic Events
The petitioners state that small populations are generally at
greater risk of extirpation from normal population fluctuations due to
predation, disease, and changing food supply, as well as from natural
disasters such as floods or droughts. They also state that loss of
genetic variability and reduced fitness due to inbreeding may be
occurring due to limited dispersal ability of the Susan's purse-making
caddisfly between the two known populations.
Global Climate Change
The petitioners state that the effects of global climate change are
being assessed in North America and throughout the world, and changes
in precipitation patterns, stream hydrology, and bloom time have
already been noted. They state that stream flows decreased by about 2
percent per decade across the last century in the central Rocky
Mountain region (Rood et al. 2005, p. 231).
The petitioners also reference Field et al.'s (2007, p. 627, 632,
635) conclusions that the effects of global climate change are
anticipated to include warming in the western mountains, causing
snowpack and ice to melt earlier in the season. These changes could
lead to both increased flooding early in the spring, and drier summer
conditions, particularly in the arid western areas which rely on
snowmelt to sustain stream flows. The petitioners point out that spring
and summer snow cover has already been documented as decreasing in the
western United States, and drought has become more frequent and intense
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007, pp. 8, 12). Major
hydrologic events such as floods and droughts are projected to increase
in frequency and intensity (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
2007, p. 18). The petitioners state that erosion is also projected to
increase as the result of a combination of factors, such as decreased
soil stability from higher temperatures and reduced soil moisture, and
increases in winds and high intensity storms (Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change 2007, pp. 12, 14, 15, 18).
The petitioners conclude that projected cumulative effects of
continuing global climate change, including increased frequency and
severity of seasonal flooding and droughts, reduced snowpack to feed
stream flow, increased siltation, and increasing air and water
temperatures, would seriously impair the Susan's purse-making
caddisfly's habitat and negatively impact its survival.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition
Although the limited distribution and presumably small size of the
two populations of the Susan's purse-making caddisfly could be a
concern, the petitioners did not provide trend information to indicate
that the caddisfly or its habitat are being impacted as a result of
small population size or stochastic events. It is possible that climate
change could pose a problem to the Susan's purse-making caddisfly if
water levels, water temperature, or other habitat variables that affect
the caddisfly change as a result global warming. However, there is
currently no model that can predict climate change effects at a local
enough scale to ascertain whether climate change is, or will become, a
threat to the Susan's purse-making caddisfly. Consequently, we conclude
that the petition does not present substantial information indicating
that listing the Susan's purse-making caddisfly may be warranted based
on other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' continued
existence.
Finding
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on
whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted
with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files. To
the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90
days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the
finding promptly in the Federal Register.
Our process for making this 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A)
of the Act is limited to a determination of whether the information in
the petition presents ``substantial scientific and commercial
information,'' which is interpreted in our regulations as ``that amount
of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the
measure proposed in the petition may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)).
As described above, the petition presents substantial information
indicating that listing the Susan's purse-making caddisfly throughout
its entire range may be warranted, based on impacts of livestock
grazing, erosion and sedimentation from logging roads, and
sedimentation from prescribed fire activities (Factor A), and the
inadequacy of Federal regulatory mechanisms (Factor D). Based on our
evaluation (above), the petition does not present substantial
information indicating that Factors B, C, and E are a threat to this
species. However, we are seeking information from the public that may
be relevant to these and the other listing factors.
Based on this review and evaluation, we find that the petition
presents substantial scientific or commercial information that listing
the Susan's purse-making caddisfly throughout all or a portion of its
range may be warranted due to current and future threats under Factors
A and D. Therefore, we are initiating a status review to determine
whether listing the Susan's purse-making caddisfly under the Act is
warranted.
The ``substantial information'' standard for a 90-day finding is
not the same as the Act's ``best scientific and commercial data''
standard that applies to a 12-month finding to determine whether a
petitioned action is warranted. A 90-day finding is not a status
assessment of the species and does not constitute a status review under
the Act. Our final determination of whether a petitioned action is
warranted is not made until we have completed a thorough status review
of the species as part of the 12-month finding on a petition, which is
conducted following a positive 90-day finding. Because the Act's
standards for 90-day and 12-month findings are different, as described
above, a positive 90-day finding does not mean that the 12-month
finding also will be positive.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Western Colorado
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
[[Page 32521]]
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the
Western Colorado Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: June 25, 2009.
Marvin E. Moriarty,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
[FR Doc. E9-16080 Filed 7-7- 09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S