[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 148 (Tuesday, August 2, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46238-46251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19445]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2011-0048; MO 92210-0-0008-B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition to List the Straight Snowfly and Idaho Snowfly as Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list the straight snowfly (Capnia
lineata) and Idaho snowfly (Capnia zukeli) as endangered and to
designate critical habitat for these species under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review, we find
that the petition does not present substantial information indicating
that listing either of the species may be warranted. Therefore, we are
not initiating a status review for either the straight snowfly or Idaho
snowfly in response to this petition. However, we ask the public to
submit to us any new information that may become available concerning
the status of, or threats to, the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly or
their habitats at any time.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on August 2,
2011.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R1-ES-2011-0048. 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, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office, 1387 South
Vinnell Way, Room 368, Boise, ID 83709. Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding
to the above street address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian T. Kelly, State Supervisor,
Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES), by telephone 208-378-
5243, or by facsimile to 208-378-5262. 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)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires
that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or
reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We
are to base this finding on information provided in the petition,
supporting information submitted with the petition, and information
otherwise available in our files. To the maximum extent practicable, we
are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition,
and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information
within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day
petition finding is ``that amount of information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial
scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to
promptly conduct a species status review, which we subsequently
summarize in our 12-month finding.
Petition History
On June 9, 2010, the Service received a petition dated June 9,
2010, from the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation and Friends
of the Clearwater, requesting that we list the straight snowfly and
Idaho snowfly as endangered, and that we designate critical habitat for
these species under the Act (hereafter cited as ``Petition''). 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 6, 2010, letter to the petitioners, we
responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition
and determined that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing
the species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act was not warranted. We also
stated that, due to court orders and
[[Page 46239]]
judicially approved settlement agreements for other listing and
critical habitat determinations under the Act that required nearly all
of our listing and critical habitat funding for fiscal year 2010, we
would not be able to further address the petition at that time, but
would complete an evaluation of the petition when workload and funding
allowed. This finding addresses the petition.
Species Information
The Idaho snowfly was once considered to be the same species as the
straight snowfly, but is now recognized as a separate species (Nelson
and Baumann 1989, p. 344). Both the straight and Idaho snowflies are in
the order Plecoptera (stoneflies), family Capniidae and genus Capnia
(Stark et al. 1998, p. 1; Nelson and Baumann 1989, entire). We accept
the characterization of the straight and Idaho snowflies as separate
species based on the publication of Nelson and Baumann (1989, p. 344),
which has been accepted by the scientific community.
Information regarding specific habitat requirements for the
straight or Idaho snowflies is unknown and is not provided in the
petition or available in our files (Petition, pp. 7-8; Idaho Department
of Fish and Game (IDFG) 2005, pp. 582-584). Information generic to the
order, family, and genus of these species is therefore presented here.
Stoneflies, in general, are primarily associated with clean, cool
running waters. The eggs and nymphs of all North American stonefly
species are aquatic, while the adults (with one exception) are
terrestrial (Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 217). After hatching from
eggs, stoneflies usually start feeding and growing immediately,
although nymphal diapause (delay in development) has been reported in
some species (Stark et al. 1998, p. 6). During the nymphal growth
period, stoneflies undergo periodic molting (Stark et al. 1998, p. 6).
Two general growth patterns are recognized for stoneflies: Fast cycle
and slow cycle (Stark et al. 1998, p. 6). Fast cycle species undergo
nymphal or egg diapause for several months and then grow quickly over a
3- to 4-month period and emerge as adults (Stark et al. 1998, p. 6).
Slow cycle species hatch directly and grow continuously over a 1- to 3-
year period and then emerge as adults (Stark et al. 1998, p. 6).
Stonefly nymphs have specific requirements for water temperature,
substrate type, and stream size, although these vary between species
(Lillehammer et al. 1989, pp. 181-182). Their microhabitats include the
hyporheic zone (the subsurface sediment and porous space adjacent to a
stream where shallow groundwater and surface water mixes), cobble and
gravel interstices, debris accumulations, and leaf packs (Stewart and
Harper 1996, p. 217). Adults live on streamside riparian vegetation,
rocks, or debris (Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 217).
The Capniidae family is the most species-rich family of stoneflies
in North America (Stark et al. 1998, p. 85). One of the primary
distinguishing characteristics of this family is the period of adult
emergence that occurs from late winter to early spring (Baumann et al.
1977, p. 56; Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 218), when adults are often
found crawling on snow and ice (Baumann et al. 1977, p. 56; Nelson in
litt. 1996, p. 2; Stark et al. 1998, p. 85). Capnia is the largest
genus in the Capniidae family. Although species in North America range
from coast to coast, they are particularly abundant west of the Great
Plains (Stark et al. 1998, p. 89).
Species in the Capniidae family can be found in a variety of lotic
(flowing water) habitats, with a small number found in lentic (standing
water) systems, such as cold, pristine mountain lakes (Stark et al.
1998, p. 86). Capniid nymphs inhabit the freshwater hyporheic zone
where they feed on detritus, making them important bases of the food
web in these relatively energy-poor zones (Nelson in litt. 1996, p. 2;
Stark et al. 1998, p. 86). Given that they inhabit the hyporheic zone,
they are not always encountered in standard benthic (bottom of a water
body) samples (Nelson in litt. 1996, p. 2).
Members of the genus Capnia are found in both cold and warm lotic
habitats (Baumann 1979, pp. 242-243). Capnia species are shredders of
decomposing plant tissue and coarse particulate organic matter (Stewart
and Harper 1996, p. 264). North American Capnia species are thought to
have univoltine (one brood of offspring per year), fast life cycles
(Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 218; Stewart and Stark 2002, p. 125), with
nymphs entering diapause in the hyporheic zone in summer (Stewart and
Harper 1996, p. 218). In general, adult Capnia emerge earliest at lower
elevations and southerly latitudes, with later emergence occurring as
elevation increases, or as one proceeds north (Nelson and Baumann 1989,
p. 291). Adults of the straight snowfly are reported to emerge from
late February through June, while adults of the Idaho snowfly are
reported to emerge during a shorter window from April through early
June (Nelson and Baumann 1989, pp. 340, 344).
The straight snowfly and Idaho snowfly were originally described by
Hanson (1943, pp. 85-88) from straight snowfly specimens collected in
1911 from Troy, Idaho, and Idaho snowfly specimens collected in 1938
from Moscow, Idaho. While the straight and Idaho snowflies are similar
and occupy the same range and similar habitat, they are described as
separate species due to morphological differences. The Idaho snowfly
exhibits an extremely long epiproct (a triangular or shield-shaped
plate covering the dorsal surface of the terminal abdominal segments),
the absence of tergal (upper surface of abdominal segment) knobs, and
brachyptery (short-wings; Nelson and Baumann 1989, p. 344); the
straight snowfly differs from the most similar Capnia confusa by its
relatively longer epiproct, visible evidence of a sclerotized
(hardened) bridge between sternites (ventral plate of a body segment)
seven and eight, and short wings exhibited by males (Nelson and Baumann
1989, p. 340). Adults of Capnia are relatively small and black, and are
usually less than 0.4 inches (10 millimeters) in length (Baumann et al.
1977, p. 61; Stark et al. 1998, p. 90).
Historical and Current Distribution
The reported distribution of the straight and Idaho snowflies is
within Latah County in northern Idaho (Hanson 1943, pp. 85-88; Nelson
and Baumann 1989, p. 340; IDFG 2005, pp. 582-584), where they have been
documented within the Potlatch and Palouse rivers and their tributaries
(Nelson and Baumann 1989, p. 344). Collectively, there were 32
documented occurrences for both Idaho-endemic species between the years
1911 and 1989 (Petition, p. 31 (Appendix I)).
The straight snowfly has been collected from eight waterbodies in
the Potlatch Watershed (Big Bear Creek, Little Bear Creek, West Fork
Little Bear Creek, Little Boulder Creek, Hog Meadow Creek, Potlatch
River, Spring Valley Creek, and Spring Valley Reservoir) and three
waterbodies in the Palouse Watershed (Lost Creek, Robinson Lake, and
South Fork Palouse River). There are some additional collection
locations generally recorded as ``Troy,'' ``Moscow,'' and other
localities east and northeast of Moscow, Idaho (Petition, p. 7).
The Idaho snowfly has been recorded from three waterbodies in the
Potlatch Watershed (Little Boulder Creek, Potlatch River, and Spring
Valley Creek), and one waterbody in the Palouse Watershed (Palouse
River). This species also has some additional general locations
documented, including
[[Page 46240]]
``Moscow,'' ``Moscow Mountain,'' and ``Troy Creek'' (Petition, p. 7).
Prior to the 1980s, it appears that collections of both species
were on a purely opportunistic or incidental basis, as there are only a
handful of records for each (three for the Idaho snowfly: In 1938,
1962, and 1977; and eight for the straight snowfly: One in 1911, one in
1930, and six from the 1960s and 1970s (Petition, Appendix I)).
Although the number of documented occurrences increased for both
species during the 1980s, it is unclear whether this was the result of
focused searches to document the full extent of their respective
ranges, or if there were simply an increased number of collections of
the two species incidental to other efforts. The actual historical
distribution of both the straight snowfly and the Idaho snowfly is
therefore unknown.
The Idaho snowfly has not been collected since 1985, and the
straight snowfly has not been collected since 1989, but according to
the petitioners, there have not been any targeted surveys for either
species since that time (Petition, pp. 7, 31). Information on the
extent and methodology of surveys within the Palouse and Potlatch
drainages and other similar watersheds, or information regarding any
surveys that may have occurred since the 1980s for either species, was
not provided in the petition, nor is it available in our files. The
petition does not provide any information, nor do we have any
information available in our files, to suggest that further attempts
have been made to locate additional populations of either species, or
that historical documented occurrences of either species have been
revisited since the 1980s to verify their continued presence or
absence. All of the references cited by the petitioners with regard to
species surveys were personal communications. Although we requested
copies of these personal communications from the petitioners, they were
not provided to us; therefore, we are not able to consider them in our
evaluation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) in litt. 2010,
entire). Whether the distribution of either species has changed since
they were last observed in the mid-to late 1980s is unknown, and the
petition presents no evidence to suggest their distributions have
changed.
Population Status and Trend
According to the petition, abundance estimates are not known to
have been made for either species at any site; apparently the only
available information regarding species abundance is that past
collections, based on a single location and date, have ranged from 1 to
87 individuals of the straight snowfly, and from 1 to 89 individuals of
the Idaho snowfly (Petition, p. 7). We have no additional information
regarding abundance for either species available to us in our files.
According to the petition, the Nature Serve global rankings are G3
(vulnerable) for the straight snowfly and G2 (imperiled) for the Idaho
snowfly (Petition, p. 5). As noted by the petitioners, however, these
ranking have since been changed to reflect a correction in the
distribution of the straight snowfly (NatureServe 2010a, p. 1;
NatureServe 2010b, p. 1). Both the straight and Idaho snowflies
currently have a Global Heritage Status Rank of G2 and a National
Status Rank of N2 (NatureServe 2010a, p. 1; NatureServe 2010b, p. 1).
According to NatureServe, a rank of G2 signifies that a species is at a
high risk of extinction or elimination due to very restricted range,
very few populations, steep declines, or other factors. The N2 rank is
assigned based upon the same factors, and species in this category are
defined as imperiled in the nation and State because of rarity due to
very restricted range, very few populations, steep declines, or other
factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation. Although we do not
know which of these factors may have served as the basis for these
rankings, and whether they may simply reflect the presumably limited
range of these endemic species, we note that the NatureServe accounts
do not provide any information regarding population abundance or trend
for either species, and further clearly state that specific threats
have not been identified for populations of either species (NatureServe
2010a, p. 2; NatureServe 2010b, p. 1). In addition, collections for
either snowfly species have not been reported since 1989, and no
surveys for the species are known to have been conducted since then
(Petition, pp. 7, 31). Based on NatureServe's ranking system, the
occurrences of both straight and Idaho snowflies reported in the
petition could therefore be considered ``historical,'' because it has
been over 20 years since they were last documented (Hammerson et al.
2008, p. 4).
Both the straight and Idaho snowfly are also listed as Species of
Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) according to the IDFG Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) (IDFG 2005, pp. 582-584). The
straight snowfly is listed with a Statewide S1 ranking, meaning that it
is critically imperiled. However, the CWCS cites, as the basis for this
ranking, the ``lack of essential information pertaining to status; 1
known location and no population trend data'' (IDFG 2005, p. 582). The
Idaho snowfly is also ranked S1 Statewide, and is included as a SGCN
due to ``lack of essential information pertaining to status; no
population trend data'' (IDFG 2005, p. 584). The CWCS recommends that
further surveys and studies be conducted to determine the distribution
and habitat needs for both species (IDFG 2005, pp. 582-584). However,
we have no information to suggest that any further surveys or studies
have been performed to date. While the petition states that both
species are considered species of concern by the U.S. Forest Service,
our records indicate that neither species has conservation status or
classification with the U.S. Forest Service or U.S. Bureau of Land
Management (IDFG 2005, pp. 582-584).
In summary, the petition provided no information, and we have none
available in our files, to inform us as to the population status of
either species. Although the petitioners contend that ``the number and
abundance of populations of these species are likely to have declined''
(Petition, p. 7), and ``are in imminent danger of extinction''
(Petition, p. 5), the petition offers no support for these statements.
Neither historical nor current estimates of abundance are available;
therefore, it is not possible to discern any trend in population
abundance of either species over time. In addition, although we have
some historical information on distribution, no surveys have been
conducted for either species in over 20 years, so we have no
information to indicate that their distribution has changed. Although
the rankings of the straight snowfly and Idaho snowfly by NatureServe
and the State of Idaho seem to suggest that the species are imperiled,
an inspection of the basis for these rankings indicates that they
merely reflect a lack of data with which to discern the status of the
species; hence, these rankings may more accurately reflect only the
limited known geographic distribution of the snowflies, as there is no
evidence of any decline or range contraction for either species. In its
CWCS, IDFG concluded that the data are too limited to adequately assess
the distribution, population size, and status of either the straight
snowfly or Idaho snowfly (IDFG 2005, pp. 582-584). Based on the
information provided in the petition and readily available to us in our
files, we agree. We have no data to inform us as to the current
distribution, abundance, or population trend of either the straight
snowfly or Idaho snowfly, and, therefore, no
[[Page 46241]]
evidence to suggest that either species may have suffered any decline
in numbers or distribution.
Evaluation of Information for This Finding
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424 set forth the procedures for adding a
species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be
an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five
factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting the species'
continued existence.
In considering what factors might constitute threats, 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 we attempt
to determine how significant a threat it is. The threat may be
significant if it drives, or contributes to, the risk of extinction of
the species such that the species may warrant listing as endangered or
threatened as those terms are defined by the Act. The identification of
factors that could impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to
compel a finding that substantial information has been presented
suggesting that listing may be warranted; virtually all species face
some degree of threat. The information should contain evidence or the
reasonable extrapolation that any factor(s) may be an operative threat
that acts on the species to the point that the species may meet the
definition of endangered or threatened under the Act.
In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information
regarding the threats to the straight snowfly or the Idaho snowfly as
presented in the petition and other information available in our files,
is substantial, thereby indicating that the petitioned action may be
warranted. Our evaluation of this information is presented below.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
The petition states that the straight and Idaho snowflies require
specific environmental conditions to survive, and that habitat and
water quality conditions have been impaired in the majority of the
streams where both species occur. The primary causes of stream
impairment cited in the petition are timber harvest operations,
agriculture, livestock grazing, recreational use, and development, each
of which, the petitioners contend, leads to habitat degradation that
threatens the survival of both species.
Timber Harvest and Related Activities
Information Provided in the Petition
The petition states that the Palouse Ranger District of the
Clearwater National Forest, home to the ``largest site cluster'' for
both the straight and Idaho snowfly, has been heavily logged and
disturbed by associated logging road construction from past timber
harvest activities (Petition, p. 10). The petitioners also state that
an ongoing U.S. Forest Service project (approved in 2006; Petition, p.
10) within the area, the Cherry Dinner project (U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) 2006, entire; USDA in litt. 2008, p. 6), is
impacting both the Hog Meadow and Little Boulder Creek drainages, where
both snowfly species were previously collected in the 1980s (Petition,
pp. 31-33). The petitioners state that the Cherry Dinner project
incorporates timber harvest activities, including 310 acres (ac) (126
hectares (ha)) of understory slashing and burning; logging of 2,210 ac
(894 ha); construction of 8.1 and 1.5 miles (mi) (13 and 2.4 kilometers
(km)) of permanent and temporary roads, respectively; and
reconstruction of 9.4 mi (15 km) of existing roads (Petition, p. 10;
USDA 2006, p. 66497). The petitioners did not state how the proposed
action would specifically impair Hog Meadow and Little Boulder Creeks.
The petition refers to ``another site'' (which we assume means
another site where one or both of the snowfly species had been
documented in the past, although the petition does not clarify this
point) located on a small patch of private land within the Clearwater
National Forest near the confluence of Nat Brown Creek and the Potlatch
River that has been heavily logged and degraded by logging road
construction in the past with numerous railroad grades along the creeks
(Petition, p. 11). According to the petition, most of these railroad
grades are now reported to be roads. More recently, the petition states
considerable logging of National Forest land within the Potlatch
watershed above this same site was approved in the West Fork Potlatch
Timber Sale environmental impact statement (EIS) and Record of Decision
(Petition, p. 11). Additionally, the petitioners state the Idaho
Department of Lands (IDL) Fiscal Year 2010 Timber Sales Plan includes
an auction of 500 ac (200 ha) in the same area as the West Fork
Potlatch Timber Sale (IDL 2010, p. 22). Activities associated with this
sale include harvesting mature timber using overstory removal, seed
trees, and a clearcut of approximately 99 ac (40 ha), along with the
construction of 2.5 mi (4.0 km) of spur road (IDL 2010, p. 22). As
discussed further below, the petitioners contend that such forestry
operations threaten the habitat suitability and long-term survival of
the snowflies (Petition, p. 11).
The petition also asserts that the Upper Lochsa Land Exchange may
threaten the two snowflies. This exchange is an agreement currently
being considered by the U.S. Forest Service and Western Pacific Timber
in the Potlatch watershed. In this agreement, 4,300 ac (1,740 ha) of
National Forest land in Latah County would be exchanged for land
elsewhere outside of the range of the straight and Idaho snowflies
(USDA in litt. 2010a, p. 2; USDA in litt. 2010b). Four of the proposed
exchange parcels are on National Forest lands along the Potlatch River,
approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) downstream from a cluster of previous
collection sites for both the straight and Idaho snowflies (Petition,
p. 11). The petitioners state that if these parcels are removed from
public ownership, timber harvest and real estate development are likely
to occur. According to the petitioners, these activities would further
compromise locations where these species were documented to occur in
the Potlatch watershed (Moose Creek to Corral Creek; Petition, p. 11),
which is already impaired and listed under section 303(d) of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) due to elevated temperature (Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) 2008, p. xix; Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in litt. 2008, p. 3).
The petitioners assert that forestry-related activities are
affecting aquatic habitat for the straight and Idaho snowflies by
altering hydrological patterns, contributing increased sediment loads
in streams, and influencing stream temperatures (Petition, p. 11). The
petition states that logging roads increase the amount of
[[Page 46242]]
compacted or impervious surfaces, reduce water infiltration, and remove
vegetation, thereby increasing surface water runoff to streams that
leads to increased erosion, turbidity, and sedimentation (Petition, p.
12; Cederholm et al. 1980, p. vi). The petition alleges that logging
roads alter aquatic habitat for the snowflies by increasing flooding,
facilitating the delivery of contaminants to streams, altering the
stream channel, and increasing invasive plant species (Petition, p. 12;
Jones et al. 2000, p. 76; Gucinski et al. 2001, entire; Forman and
Alexander 1999, pp. 216, 219-221).
The petition states that impaired water quality and habitat
conditions have already been documented in the majority of the streams
where these species occur. It further states that each of the streams
within the species' ranges that were recently investigated by the IDEQ
failed the multimetric assessment (known as the ``Beneficial Use
Reconnaissance Program'' or BURP), based on biological and physical
characteristics, indicating these creeks do not support their
designated beneficial uses, including support of cold-water aquatic
organisms (Petition, p. 10).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
The ongoing U.S. Forest Service Cherry Dinner project and
associated timber harvest activities are specifically cited in the
petition as threatening the habitat for the straight and Idaho
snowflies, but the analysis provided in the petition and information
available in our files regarding how the project will impact or affect
these two species is very limited. Furthermore, while this project
includes timber harvest and road construction activities, as cited in
the petition, the petition does not make note of those measures
included in the Cherry Dinner project that are aimed at reducing
impacts to stream habitats. Some of these measures would directly
address several of the alleged threats to the two snowflies as
characterized by the petitioners (Petition, pp. 10-11). For example,
one of the identified purposes and needs for the Cherry Dinner project
is to ``reduce long-term sedimentation to streams caused by existing
unsurfaced roads, and to stabilize stream banks made unstable by
motorized vehicles, cattle trailing, and channelization (historic
railroad grades)'' (USDA 2006, p. 66497). The project plan incorporates
watershed improvements, including decommissioning 24.2 mi (39 km) of
roads, putting 24.6 mi (40 km) of existing roads into intermittent
stored service (self-maintaining), and stabilizing 4.8 mi (7.7 km) of
streambank along the East Fork Potlatch River and its tributaries (USDA
2006, p. 66497). The petition did not present any specific information,
and we have no information available in our files, that suggests there
is any link between this project and any population response on the
part of either the straight snowfly or the Idaho snowfly.
Similarly, the petition alleges threats to the Potlatch watershed,
in general, from increased activities related to industrial logging,
real estate development, and road construction associated within the
proposed Upper Lochsa Land Exchange (Petition, p. 11). However, the
petition provides no specific information, and we have none available
in our files, suggesting any link between those alleged threats and the
status of the snowflies or their habitats. Other timber sales on
National Forest and State lands are cited in the petition as occurring
within the range of both snowflies, but analysis provided of potential
effects is limited to a description of activities, and the personal
communication cited as a reference in the petition to describe existing
conditions from past timber harvest activities (Petition, p. 11) was
not provided to the Service for our review, nor do we have any
pertinent information available in our files.
The petitioners argue that impaired water quality and habitat
conditions have already been documented in the majority of the streams
where these species occur. However, we did not find that to be the
case, based on the information presented in the petition and available
in our files. As described in the petition (p. 7), the straight snowfly
has been recorded from a total of 11 specific waterbodies in two
watersheds and an unspecified number of additional general locations;
the Idaho snowfly has been recorded from 4 specific waterbodies in two
watersheds and some other unspecified number of general locales as
well. Of these locations, it appears the IDEQ has assessed water
quality standards in a total of five waterbodies where the species were
documented: Big Bear Creek (straight snowfly), West Fork Little Bear
Creek (straight snowfly), South Fork Palouse River (straight snowfly),
Little Boulder Creek (both species), and the Potlatch River (both
species) (IDEQ 2007, pp. xviii, 35; IDEQ 2008, pp. 52, 53).
The EPA is responsible for ensuring that Idaho complies with the
Clean Water Act, and requires IDEQ to adopt water quality standards and
submit those standards to the EPA every 3 years. Water quality
standards address various beneficial uses designated, or presumed, for
specific water bodies, and define the criteria needed to support those
uses. The IDEQ must monitor State waters to identify those that do not
meet water quality standards; impaired waters that do not meet the
standards are included on the Clean Water Act's section 303(d) list
(IDEQ 2008, p. 1). We acknowledge that many of the waterbodies sampled
by IDEQ in the Potlatch River and South Fork Palouse River Watersheds,
including some where one or both of the two snowfly species may have
been collected in the past, were found to violate some aspect of
Idaho's water quality standards. However, it is not clear whether the
areas sampled for water quality directly correspond to the areas where
snowfly presence was previously documented. For example, although both
snowflies are documented from the ``Potlatch River'' (Petition, p. 7),
the IDEQ provides reports for the ``Potlatch River from Big Bear Creek
to the mouth,'' for the ``East Fork Potlatch River'' and ``West Fork
Potlatch River,'' and then for various reaches within those rivers, all
which may differ in their results (IDEQ 2008, p. 52). The Potlatch
River from Big Bear Creek to the mouth passed the BURP multimetric
assessment, and some reaches of the East Fork Potlatch River passed,
whereas others failed (IDEQ 2008, p. 52). If a stream did not pass the
assessment, it was because it was found that ``biological
characteristics do not support beneficial uses and the stream fails the
assessment'' (IDEQ 2008, p. 51). Uncertainty as to whether the reaches
sampled by IDEQ are representative of areas where either of the two
snowfly species has been documented makes it difficult to evaluate the
potential implications of the IDEQ assessments to the two species.
The petition provides only broad references about the typically
narrow environmental tolerances of stoneflies in general, but provides
us with no data, and we have none available in our files, to inform us
as to the specific habitat requirements of these two snowfly species,
or to suggest what effect the present water quality conditions may have
on either species. For example, with regard to water temperature, the
petition states that ``requirements for Capnia lineata and C. zukeli
have not been specifically documented, but other lotic, cold water
species in this family are known to require dissolved oxygen
saturations of 80 to 100%, and typically inhabit streams, creeks, and
rivers with mean temperatures below 16 [deg]C''
[[Page 46243]]
(Petition, p. 8). Whether this generalized temperature requirement may
apply to the straight and Idaho snowflies, however, is unknown.
Information from the State of Idaho's watershed assessment reports,
provided by the petitioners, suggests that the State considers water
temperatures not exceeding a daily average of 66 [deg]F (19 [deg]C) as
the standard for supporting cold-water aquatic life beneficial use
(IDEQ 2007, p. 28). Although the petition states that stonefly larvae
in particular have very narrow environmental requirements and are
particularly vulnerable to impacts on water quality, such as changes in
temperature, references provided in the petition also suggest that
there is considerable variation in these requirements between species
(Lillehammer et al. 1989, p. 179). As the water quality requirements of
either the straight or Idaho snowflies is unknown, we have no
information to allow us to determine how changes in various aspects of
water quality may affect the species. In addition, as the last known
collections or surveys for either species were in 1989, with no
targeted collections or surveys since, we have no evidence to suggest
that the abundance or distribution of either species has been
curtailed. Therefore, we have no substantial information to suggest the
compromised water quality noted at some locations in the IDEQ reports
may be impacting either species to the degree that the species may
potentially be threatened with extinction, now or within the
foreseeable future.
Most of the information presented in the petition regarding timber
harvest and associated activities is related to the generalized effects
on streams and aquatic habitats, but the petition does not present
information specific to the effects of these activities on either the
straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly. Although stonefly species in general
may potentially be affected by such activities, the petition does not
provide information, and we have none available in our files, that
indicates the degree to which the straight or Idaho snowflies may
actually be exposed to the effects of these activities, or that allows
us to quantify or evaluate the severity of any potential impact from
these activities on the species.
Additionally, because there have been no known surveys for the two
snowflies since the 1980s, we could find no current population size,
distribution, or trend data in the petition or in our files that would
enable us to determine whether any alleged impacts from timber harvest
and associated activities, described as threats in the petition, may
significantly affect the snowflies or their habitats. As stated
previously, we have no evidence to suggest that the abundance or
distribution of either species has been curtailed. While we understand
that past and present timber harvest and their related activities have
likely affected aquatic habitats, we have no available substantial
information, and the petition has presented none, to allow us to
quantify or evaluate these threats to either species, or to suggest
that timber harvest may be a threat of such significance as to
potentially threaten the straight snowfly or the Idaho snowfly with
extinction, now or within the foreseeable future.
Agriculture and Related Activities
Information Provided in the Petition
The petition states agriculture poses significant threats to the
long-term survival of the straight and Idaho snowflies in the
southwestern portions of their range (Petition, p. 12). Five creeks
where the two snowflies were documented in the 1960s and early 1980s
(Big Bear Creek, Little Bear Creek, West Fork Little Bear Creek,
Palouse River, and South Fork Palouse River) are located directly below
upland agriculture for the majority of their lengths (Petition, pp. 12,
31). The petition asserts the conversion of native bunchgrass prairie
to predominately annual crops within the Potlatch River watershed has
left the soil susceptible to wind and water (precipitation runoff)
erosion, and resulted in increased overland surface flow and decreased
infiltration of water into the soil (Petition, p. 12). According to the
petition, this has caused high sediment loads in streams and altered
the stream hydrograph, with high peak flows following precipitation
events and extremely low base-flows in summer within the Potlatch River
watershed (IDFG 2006, pp. 1-2). The petition states Big Bear Creek,
Little Bear Creek, and West Fork Little Bear Creek, where the straight
and Idaho snowflies were collected in the 1960s and early 1980s, are
now characterized as having a low gradient with incised channels,
limited riparian vegetation, small substrate composition, and altered
hydrographs (IDFG 2006, p. 2).
The petition asserts chemical use related to agriculture, such as
herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers, negatively affects water
chemistry within the southwestern range of the straight and Idaho
snowflies, posing a serious threat to both species (Petition, p. 13).
Triallate, a pre-emergent, selective, thiocarbamate herbicide was
identified in the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water-Quality
Assessment's Central Columbia Plateau study as the most commonly used
pesticide in the Palouse study subunit, a portion of which is within
the range of both snowflies (Roberts and Wagner 1996, p. 1).
Concentrations of triallate, along with three other pesticides,
diazinon, carbaryl, and gamma-HCH, were also detected in the Palouse
subunit at levels above the freshwater-chronic criteria for the
protection of aquatic life (Roberts and Wagner 1996, p. 3). While
triallate's toxicity to stoneflies is unknown, it is documented to be
toxic to other aquatic insects (Kegley et al. in litt. 2009a, pp. 2-3).
Trifluralin, an herbicide formulated with triallate was documented at
lower concentrations in streams within the Palouse subunit, and has
been cited as causing mortality in aquatic species including stoneflies
(Petition, p. 13; Kegley et al. in litt. 2009d, entire; Stavola and
Patterson 2004, entire). Additionally, the petitioners state that
diazinon and carbaryl are highly toxic to stoneflies (Petition, p. 13;
Kegley et al. in litt. 2009b, entire), and along with triallate and
trifluralin, pose a serious threat to both the straight and Idaho
snowflies (Petition, p. 13; Kegley et al. in litt. 2009a, pp. 2-3).
In addition to the use of pesticides, the petition states high
application rates of ammonium-based nitrogen fertilizers within the
Palouse River watershed pose additional concerns for the straight and
Idaho snowflies (Petition, p. 13). If these fertilizers get into the
water, the high ammonia concentrations and other nutrient inputs can
lead to excess algae growth, can cause oxygen depletion due to the
growth and decomposition cycle of algae, and can cause increased
biochemical oxygen demand as ammonia is transformed to nitrate-nitrogen
(Petition, pp. 13-14). The petition asserts a reduction in dissolved
oxygen is deleterious to stoneflies, in general, and poses a
significant threat to both snowfly species (Petition, p. 14). The
petition did not, however, provide any evidence that high ammonia
concentrations have been observed in waters where the two snowfly
species have been documented.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Based on information available in our files, the Service agrees
that the Palouse Prairie ecosystem, which includes Latah County and the
range of the straight and Idaho snowflies, has been heavily impacted by
past agricultural activities, with 94 percent of the grasslands and 97
percent of the wetlands converted to crops, hay, or pasture since 1870
(Black
[[Page 46244]]
et al. 2003, p. 1). Between 1931 and 1979, the last significant area of
native plant communities was plowed (Black et al. 2003, p. 7). Portions
of the Potlatch River drainage are now subject to high water
temperatures, high variability in flow, and altered riparian and upland
habitats, conditions that have been present since European settlement
when changes to land-uses altered the landscape and hydrology within
the Potlatch River (IDFG 2006, p. 23). These conditions will likely
remain constant until further human development or intense restoration
efforts occur (IDFG 2006, p. 23). Since 1970, little change has
occurred in the overall land area devoted to agriculture. However,
certain highly erodible lands have been temporarily removed from crop
production under the Federal Conservation Reserve Program, with 34,594
ac (14,000 ha) removed from agriculture production and planted
primarily with introduced perennial grasses in Latah County alone
(Black et al. 2003, p. 8).
While we agree the Palouse Prairie ecosystem and portions of the
straight and Idaho snowflies' range have experienced a dramatic
conversion of native habitat to agriculture over the last century,
information linking any potential effects of agriculture to the status
of the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly is currently not available in
the petition, supporting documentation, or our files. The petition
provides general information regarding agricultural chemical use within
the Palouse region and the potential effects on certain stoneflies and
aquatic insects (Petition, pp. 13-14), but information is provided at
the Palouse River watershed level and is not specific to known snowfly
populations (Roberts and Wagner 1996, entire). The level of
agricultural chemical use within the Potlatch River watershed at sites
where both snowfly species have been documented (Petition, pp. 6-7) is
also unknown, although the petition cites an Idaho State Department of
Agriculture study in the Clearwater Basin that concluded, ``all
pesticide concentrations detected during this study were below any
chronic or acute levels that may cause ill effects for aquatic
species'' (Petition, p. 13). It is unknown, from information in the
petition or in our files, what effect current agricultural chemical use
may be having on either snowfly species. Although some of the
agricultural chemicals used in the region may have varying degrees of
toxicity to stoneflies, we do not have any information to assist us in
determining what level of exposure to these chemicals, if any, is being
experienced by the snowflies, and if exposed, what the potential
consequence of that exposure may be. Consequently, we are unable to
quantify or evaluate threats to the two snowfly species from
agricultural chemical use, based on the information presented in the
petition and available in our files.
Most of the information presented in the petition and assertions
made regarding threats from agriculture and associated activities are
related to the generalized effects on streams, aquatic habitats, and
several other aquatic insects, including stoneflies, but are not
specific to the straight or Idaho snowflies or the sites of their
documented occurrence. Additionally, because there have been no known
surveys for the straight or Idaho snowfly since 1989, we could find no
current population size, distribution, or trend data in the petition or
in our files that would enable us to determine whether the potential
threats from agriculture and related activities as described in the
petition may indeed be a threat to the species' existence. In addition,
certain conservation programs, such as the Federal Conservation Reserve
Program, have been recently implemented within the known distribution
of both snowflies (Black et al. 2003, p. 8), and may be benefiting both
species by reducing agriculture-related effects to streams where
snowflies were collected. At present we have no evidence to suggest
that the abundance or distribution of either species has been curtailed
in any way. We therefore have no available substantial information, and
the petition has presented none, to suggest that agriculture and
related activities may be a threat of such significance as to
potentially threaten the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly with
extinction, now or within the foreseeable future.
Livestock Grazing
Information Provided in the Petition
Within the range of the straight and Idaho snowflies, the petition
states that livestock grazing has degraded water quality and negatively
impacted aquatic macroinvertebrate communities through trampling and
consumption of riparian vegetation, downcutting the riparian buffer,
defecating and urinating within the stream channel and banks, and
increasing sedimentation through the removal of riparian vegetation and
trampling to channel banks (Petition, p. 14). The petitioners generally
assert that livestock grazing has been shown to result in the loss of
biodiversity, disruption of biological communities, and dramatic
alteration of terrestrial and aquatic communities (Petition, p. 14).
The petitioners assert that livestock grazing-related impairment to
water quality has occurred at most sites where the straight and Idaho
snowflies were collected (Petition, p. 14). All known straight and
Idaho snowfly collection sites on the Clearwater National Forest are
within the currently active Potlatch Creek grazing allotment (Petition,
pp. 14, 36; USDA in litt. 2007). This allotment utilizes a pasture
rotation system and is active annually from June 8 through November 7
(USDA 2009a, p. 1). The petitioners state that the Potlatch River,
within the Potlatch Creek allotment between Moose Creek and Corral
Creek, where both snowfly species have been documented, fails to meet
Idaho's water quality standards due to elevated temperature levels
(Petition, p. 14; IDEQ 2008, p. xx; EPA in litt. 2008, p. 3). At a site
where the straight snowfly was collected near the confluence of Nat
Brown Creek and the Potlatch River, the petition asserts that impacts
from livestock grazing are occurring in the Purdue and West Fork
Potlatch-Moose Creek allotments on both National Forest and non-
National Forest lands (Petition, p. 14). The Potlatch-Moose Creek
allotment uses a three-pasture rotation grazing system that is active
from June 1 through October 31 (USDA 2009b, p. 1). The petition also
noted that cattle-degraded conditions have been documented by the U.S.
Forest Service at Nat Brown Creek and this area is targeted for habitat
restoration projects (USDA 2008, p. 24).
The petition states that livestock attraction to riparian areas is
higher during the summer and fall (Clary and Webster 1989, p. 2;
Leonard et al. 1997, p. 11). This timing coincides with the annual
grazing season for allotments that contain streams with snowfly
collection sites, which the petitioners claim further increases the
potential for livestock to have serious, adverse effects on both
snowfly species (Petition, p. 14). The petitioners cite a specific
study of a mountain stream in Northeastern Oregon where significant
reductions were documented in species richness and abundance of the
Plecoptera taxa (stoneflies) in grazed versus ungrazed controls (McIver
and McInnis 2007, p. 298). However, the petition did not provide
supporting information on grazing effects specific to the straight or
Idaho snowflies.
[[Page 46245]]
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
The petition claimed that existing water quality and habitat
conditions for the straight and Idaho snowflies are being impacted by
ongoing grazing on National Forest and adjacent lands within the range
of the two species, although it is unclear from the information
provided in the petition or in our files what the actual level of
impact from grazing may be. Although the Service acknowledges that
grazing is occurring within the range of the two species and may
adversely affect water quality to some degree, the petition did not
provide any supporting information, and we have none available in our
files, that demonstrate any relationship between grazing and the status
of either the straight snowfly or the Idaho snowfly. Information in the
petition or in our files is not sufficient to suggest that there may be
any specific effects of livestock grazing on either snowfly species, as
no information is presented regarding either the level of impact that
may be occurring as a result of grazing, or evidence of any negative
population response by either snowfly species.
While the information in the petition and in our files documents
existing livestock grazing and water quality conditions within a
portion of the straight and Idaho snowflies' known range, the
information presented in the petition is restricted to the generalized
effect of grazing on streams, aquatic habitats, or macroinvertebrate
communities, but is not specific to the straight or Idaho snowflies.
The petition does not provide information, and we have none available
in our files, describing the level of impact that may potentially be
occurring at straight or Idaho snowfly sites as a result of livestock
grazing, therefore we have no data to verify or quantify this threat to
either species. Although the petitioners indicated that grazing is
occurring at some sites where the snowflies were documented in the
past, and the U.S. Forest Service noted degraded riparian conditions at
one location related to cattle, the petition provides no specific
information as to the level of impact that may potentially be
experienced by the snowflies as a result of grazing activities.
Additionally, because there have been no known surveys for either the
straight or Idaho snowfly since 1989, we could find no current
population size, distribution, or trend data in the petition or in our
files that would enable us to determine whether the potential threat
from grazing as described in the petition may be a threat to the
species' existence. At present we have no evidence to suggest that the
abundance or distribution of either species has been curtailed in any
way. We have no available substantial information, and the petition
presents none, to suggest that grazing may be a threat of such
significance as to potentially threaten the straight snowfly or Idaho
snowfly with extinction, now or within the foreseeable future.
Recreation
Information Provided in the Petition
The petition asserts that recreation threatens habitat conditions
and water quality requirements for the straight and Idaho snowflies on
both State and Federal lands where they have been collected in the past
(Petition, p. 15). According to the petition, the Palouse Ranger
District is the most heavily visited district within the Clearwater
National Forest, with three campgrounds and over 90 mi (145 km) of
trails located in close proximity to the population centers of Moscow
and Lewiston, Idaho (Petition, p. 15). Recreational activities on the
Palouse Ranger District cited in the petition include hiking, biking,
camping, fishing, and hunting, with increasing rates of off-highway
vehicle (OHV) recreation, including cross-country travel and user-
created trails (Petition, p. 15; USDA in litt. 2009, p. 1). Petitioner-
cited OHV-specific effects on the Clearwater National Forest include
vegetation loss, unsightly scars, soil erosion, and stream degradation
(e.g., devegetation, destruction of fragile banks, and increased
siltation; USDA in litt. 2009, p. 1).
Little Boulder Creek campground, a popular developed campground and
recreation area, and the site of collections for both snowflies in 1985
(Petition, pp. 31, 33), is cited in the petition as having adversely
affected habitat due to erosion from foot, bike, car, and OHV traffic;
runoff of pollutants from roads and trails; introduction of bacteria
and excess nutrients from dog waste; trampling of streamside vegetation
by recreationists; and the construction and maintenance of stream
crossings and culverts that can interrupt stream flow, generate
additional sedimentation and siltation in waterways, and pose barriers
to dispersal by the snowflies (Petition, pp. 15-16).
The Spring Valley Reservoir, which is managed by IDFG, is another
recreation area cited by the petitioners as negatively affecting
habitat suitability for both snowfly species. This reservoir and
campsite is located just above Spring Valley Creek, which is the site
of two documented locations for both the straight and Idaho snowflies
(Petition, p. 16). The petition asserts that reservoir operations aimed
at increasing summer recreation opportunities have altered the natural
hydrology of Spring Valley Creek below the reservoir. They claim that
retaining spring run-off until fall, when it is released from the
reservoir, affects habitat suitability for both snowfly species by
increasing summer water temperatures in the creek (Petition, p. 16).
According to the petition, riparian areas along the section of Spring
Valley Creek below the reservoir are compromised by dam rip-rap and a
road, which could further elevate water temperatures via loss of
shading vegetation along the creek (Petition, p. 16).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
The petition states that the Palouse Ranger District is the most
heavily visited district on the Clearwater National Forest; although
the document that the petitioners cited supporting this claim was not
provided to the Service for our review, we were unable to find it
ourselves. Although we do not dispute that recreational use is
occurring within the range of the two snowfly species, it is unclear
from the petition or information available in our files what specific
effects recreational use at the three campgrounds and over 90 mi (145
km) of trails cited by petitioners may be having on the two snowflies
or their aquatic habitats. The petition offers a list of various
impacts that could potentially be associated with recreational
activities, but provides no evidence that such impacts are actually
occurring, or that they are occurring at a level that may impact the
two snowfly species. Although recreational use may have some effect on
the snowflies or their habitats, we have no data to suggest or quantify
these potential threats to the species. We have no available
substantial information, and the petition provides none, to suggest
that any possible effects from recreational usage of campgrounds or
trails may rise to the level of threatening the continued existence of
either the straight or Idaho snowfly.
The increase of OHV use on the Clearwater National Forest and the
effects of that use on the landscape are specifically cited and
supported in the petition (Petition, p. 15; USDA in litt. 2009, p. 1).
However, the information provided is at the level of the entire
National Forest, and does not identify the level of OHV use that is
occurring
[[Page 46246]]
at sites where straight or Idaho snowflies have been documented. The
petition provides no information, and we have none available in our
files, to suggest that the abundance or distribution of either snowfly
species has been curtailed within the Clearwater National Forest. The
Clearwater National Forest is presently undertaking its Travel Plan and
OHV Rule Implementation process under the National Travel Rule (70 FR
68264; November 9, 2005), with expected implementation sometime in 2011
(USDA in litt. 2010a, p. 3). The National Travel Rule requires National
Forests to formally designate roads, trails, and areas where summer
motorized travel is permitted and to show them on a Motor Vehicle Use
Map (MVUM). Once the Clearwater National Forest Travel Plan is
implemented, motorized travel will be permitted only on the roads,
trails, and areas shown on the MVUM (USDA in litt. 2009, p. 1), and
therefore OHV use will be better regulated and impacts should be
reduced within the Clearwater National Forest. At present, however, the
petition does not provide information, and we have none available in
our files, to suggest that any possible effects from OHV use in the
Clearwater National Forest may rise to the level of threatening the
continued existence of either the straight or Idaho snowfly.
While the petition asserts that Little Boulder Creek campground
negatively affects the straight and Idaho snowflies' aquatic habitat,
the petition only summarizes campground conditions, demands, and
associated recreational uses. We have no information available in our
files, and the petition offers none, to suggest that activities
associated with campgrounds may pose a significant threat to the
existence of the two species. Without more specific information
regarding how these campground conditions and associated activities may
be directly impacting the two snowfly species or their aquatic habitat,
we cannot evaluate the Little Boulder Creek campground as a threat to
the straight or Idaho snowfly.
The petition claims that Spring Valley Creek reservoir operations
alter the natural hydrology of Spring Valley Creek below the dam by
retaining spring run-off until it is released from the reservoir in the
fall. We agree that these reservoir operations may negatively affect
Spring Valley Creek stream conditions below the dam's outflow, but we
have no data that verify that the resulting stream conditions may be a
threat to the two snowfly species. Although the petition states that
warmer water temperatures in summer are likely as a result of reservoir
operations, the petition offers no data or support for this assertion,
and provides no information as to the potential consequences for the
two snowfly species. At present we have no evidence to suggest that the
abundance or distribution of the two snowfly species has been curtailed
in Spring Valley Creek. Information in the petition or in our files is
not sufficient to suggest that there are any specific effects from
reservoir operations on either snowfly species, as no information is
presented to demonstrate any negative response by either snowfly
population. We therefore do not have substantial information to suggest
that any possible effects from operation of the Spring Valley Reservoir
may rise to the level of threatening the continued existence of either
the straight or Idaho snowfly.
Most of the information presented in the petition regarding
recreation is general in nature regarding the effects on streams and
aquatic habitats, and is not specific to the aquatic habitat for the
straight or Idaho snowflies. Additionally, because there have been no
known surveys for the straight or Idaho snowfly since 1989, we could
find no current population size, distribution, or trend data in the
petition or in our files that would enable us to determine whether the
potential threat from recreation as described in the petition may be a
threat to the species' existence. At this time we have no evidence to
suggest that the abundance or distribution of either snowfly species
has been curtailed in any way. We have no available substantial
information, and the petition presents none, to suggest that recreation
may be a threat of such significance as to potentially threaten the
straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly with extinction, now or within the
foreseeable future.
Development
Information Provided in the Petition
The petition states that within the city limits of Moscow, Idaho,
the continued survival of both species is doubtful due to habitat
degradation of streams within the city limits (Petition, p. 16). Both
the straight and Idaho snowflies were previously collected in Moscow,
although specific stream locations were not identified. Moscow, along
with the cities of Troy, Deary, and Bovill, are all within the range of
the snowflies, and all four are cited as growing in human population
(Petition, p. 16; Latah County Comprehensive Plan 2004, p. 9; U.S.
Census Bureau in litt. 2009, entire). Each of these growing cities
operates a Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) that discharges effluent
to a river or tributary where one or both snowfly species have been
previously collected (Petition, p. 16; IDEQ 2008, p. 55).
The petitioners state that the city of Troy's WWTP discharges into
the West Fork Little Bear Creek (near a historical collection site for
the straight snowfly), which is documented to have excessive plant
growth due to nutrient overloading, elevated temperatures, and bacteria
levels (Petition, pp. 16-17; IDEQ 2008, p. xxvi). The petitioners
further state that this creek suffers from declining dissolved oxygen
levels, presumably caused from effluent discharged from the city of
Troy's WWTP (Petition, p. 17; IDEQ 2008, p. 75). The city of Deary
discharges waste from a WWTP into Mount Deary Creek, a tributary to a
Clean Water Act's section 303(d)-listed Big Bear Creek, where the
straight snowfly was collected in 1967 (Petition, pp. 17, 31; IDEQ
2008, p. xxv). The city of Bovill releases effluent from a WWTP into
the Potlatch River, also a Clean Water Act's section 303(d)-listed
stream, just upstream from a ``cluster of sites'' where both snowfly
species were collected (Petition, p. 17; IDEQ 2008, pp. xxiv-xxv).
Within the Palouse River watershed, the Syringa Mobile Home Park is
cited by the petitioners as discharging effluent into the South Fork
Palouse River near one historical location for the straight snowfly
(Petition, p. 17). This section of the South Fork Palouse River is
cited by petitioners as not meeting water quality standards to fully
support aquatic life due to elevated sediment, nutrients, temperature,
and bacteria (Petition, p. 17; IDEQ 2007, p. xvii).
The petition states that roadways and other impervious surfaces
have also affected the Palouse and Potlatch watersheds due to
increasing sedimentation in streams from overland water flow and road
maintenance activities (Petition, p. 17). The petition also implicates
dispersing accumulated contaminants (such as brake dust, heavy metals,
and organic pollutants) into streams as a threat to these two species
(Petition, p. 17). Also, as previously mentioned, forest and smaller
access roads are cited by petitioners as increasing the rate of erosion
and sedimentation into streams (Petition, p. 17; Gucinski et al. 2001,
pp. 12-15). Lastly, roads are cited as creating barriers to the
movement of the straight and Idaho snowflies (Petition, p. 17); we
evaluate those threats below under ``Barriers to Dispersal.''
The petitioners refer to the increasing use of anti-icing road
salts within the range of the straight and Idaho snowflies
[[Page 46247]]
as having detrimental effects on aquatic organisms due to their
toxicity and movement from roadways into nearby streams and rivers
(Petition, p. 17; Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) in litt. 2004,
entire; Kegley et al. in litt. 2009c, entire). Magnesium chloride
(MgCl2), the primary liquid de-icing agent used by ITD on
Idaho State roadways (Petition, p. 17), has been cited by the
petitioners as having lethal and sublethal effects on aquatic insects
such as water fleas (Daphnia and Ceriodaphnia spp.; Kegley et al.
2009c, p. 4; Lewis 1999, pp. 28-33). In addition, the petitioners state
that MgCl2 has also been shown to affect riparian vegetation
by stunting overall growth and decreasing leaf cover, making it
problematic for stream temperatures to remain cool during late summer
when stream flows are low, thereby affecting habitat requirements for
the snowflies (Petition, p. 18).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
While streams within the city limits of Moscow, Idaho, may be
degraded, information was not presented in the petition, and is not
available in our files, to suggest the decline or absence of the
straight or Idaho snowfly in those streams as a consequence. We
acknowledge the WWTPs in the Idaho cities of Troy, Deary, and Bovill,
along with the Syringa Mobile Home Park, discharge effluent into water
quality-impaired streams with documented straight and Idaho snowfly
collections. We also agree that sedimentation and contaminants from
roadways, such as brake dust and MgCl2, may negatively
affect water quality and aquatic organisms within the range of the
straight and Idaho snowflies. However, it is unclear from the
information provided in the petition or in our files what level of
impact, if any, the discharge of effluent or sedimentation and
contaminants may have on the two species of snowflies. In addition, we
could find no reliable population size or trend data for the two
snowflies in the petition or in our files that would enable us to
determine whether these activities may be threatening the species'
existence, as the last known collections or surveys for either the
straight or Idaho snowfly in these areas were conducted more than 20
years ago. We therefore have no substantial information available to
us, and the petition presents none, to suggest that development may be
a threat of such significance as to potentially threaten the straight
snowfly or Idaho snowfly with extinction, now or within the foreseeable
future.
Barriers to Dispersal
Information Provided in the Petition
The petition asserts that roadways and currently impaired habitat
conditions within the Potlatch River watershed, including elevated
water temperature, sediment, and nutrient levels, may be limiting the
snowflies' ability to colonize or re-colonize suitable habitat,
therefore confining their known range to a smaller set of creeks than
they historically occupied (Petition, p. 18).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
The information presented in the petition regarding barriers to
dispersal is related to generalized effects of roadways and impaired
habitat conditions on streams, aquatic habitats, and certain aquatic
macroinvertebrates; the petition does not present any information
specific to the straight or Idaho snowflies. Additionally, we could
find no reliable population size or trend data in the petition or in
our files for the two snowflies that would allow us to determine
whether barriers to dispersal may threaten the snowflies' continued
existence. The last known collections or surveys for either the
straight or Idaho snowfly were in 1989, and we have no evidence to
suggest that the abundance or distribution of either species has been
curtailed in any way. We therefore have no substantial information
available to us, and the petition presents none, to suggest that
barriers to dispersal may be a threat of such significance as to
potentially threaten the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly with
extinction, now or within the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor A
The petition presents a detailed account of various activities
occurring within the range of the straight snowfly and Idaho snowfly
that may have generalized negative impacts on environmental quality of
aquatic habitats. However, the petition does not present any
information that correlates the status of the two snowfly species with
any of the threats cited. Further, the petition does not provide any
data to suggest that either of the species have declined in abundance
or suffered any reduction in range in response to any of the cited
general threats. The species were last collected in the 1980s, and we
are unaware of any attempts to survey for either species since that
time. We could find no reliable population size, distribution, or trend
data for either the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly in the petition
or in our files that would lead us to conclude that the potential
threats considered under Factor A may be a threat to the species'
continued existence. In addition, as the total range occupied by
straight and Idaho snowfly populations in Idaho has never been
documented, no reduction in snowfly range can be determined. We found
very little data, in the petition or in our files, directly related to
the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly indicating the extent of any
impact to their populations.
In summary, we could find no information in the petition or in our
files that would be sufficient to lead a reasonable person to conclude
that the petitioned action may be warranted due to the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the habitat or
range of the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly, as there is no
information to suggest that either of these species may meet the
definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act.
Overall, the petition's claims are not supported by the information
available. Consequently, we conclude that the petition does not present
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
listing either the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly may be warranted
based on the present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Information Provided in the Petition
The petition does not present information, and we do not have any
information in our files, suggesting that overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes may be a
threat to either the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly. Consequently,
we conclude that the petition does not present substantial scientific
or commercial information indicating that listing either the straight
snowfly or Idaho snowfly may be warranted based on overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.
C. Disease or Predation
Information Provided in the Petition
The petition does not identify disease or predation as a potential
threat to either the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly at this time.
The petition does state that even though threats from disease or
predation have never been assessed for these two species, the rarity
[[Page 46248]]
of these species and their confined ranges makes them more vulnerable
to extinction as a result of normal population fluctuations resulting
from disease or predation (Petition, p. 19). The petitioners did not
offer any supporting documentation for these statements, but referred
to their discussion under Factor E regarding the alleged rarity of the
species.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
The petition asserts that since both snowfly species are rare and
have confined ranges, they are more vulnerable to extinction as a
result of normal population fluctuations resulting from predation or
disease. However, in order to determine that there is substantial
information that a species may be endangered or threatened, we have to
determine that the species actually may be subject to specific
significant threats. Although we agree that species with restricted
ranges and small populations may be more vulnerable to potential
threats, broad statements about generalized threats to rare species do
not independently constitute substantial information that listing may
be warranted. Moreover, as detailed in the section below on Small
Population Size and Stochastic Events under Factor E, the limited
survey data available are insufficient to determine whether these
snowfly species are, in fact, rare. We could find no information in the
petition or in our files suggesting any impact to either species from
disease or predation, or in any way linking the status of the straight
snowfly or Idaho snowfly to disease or predation. Consequently, we
conclude that the petition does not present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that listing either the straight
snowfly or Idaho snowfly may be warranted based on disease or
predation.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Information Provided in the Petition
The petition asserts that the straight and Idaho snowflies
currently receive no recognition or protection under Federal or State
law. The petition also states that both species are considered
critically imperiled by IDFG's Conservation Data Center (now called the
Idaho Natural Heritage Program). In addition, the petition states that
both species are considered species of concern by the U.S. Forest
Service, but that this designation has not resulted in the species
being taken into consideration in the assessment of the environmental
impacts of management actions (Petition, p. 19). While the petitioners
claim that the straight and Idaho snowfly do not receive recognition or
protection under Federal or State law, they do not identify any
specific threats to either species, besides ``land management
activities within the Clearwater National Forest administrative
boundary,'' as a result of this lack of recognition or protection for
these species (Petition, p. 19).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Both the straight and Idaho snowflies are classified as
``critically imperiled'' by the Idaho Conservation Data Center (IDFG
2005, pp. 582-584), although the reasoning for this designation is the
``lack of essential information pertaining to status'' and ``no
population trend data'' (which is because neither species has been
collected since 1989, nor, according to the petition, have any targeted
surveys for these species been conducted since then). The recommended
actions for both species cited in IDFG (2005, pp. 582-584) are ``field
surveys are needed to determine the distribution and habitat needs of
this species.'' We were unable to find information in the petition,
supporting documentation, or in our files that confirmed that both
species are considered species of concern by the U.S. Forest Service
(IDFG 2005, pp. 582-584). While they are considered species of concern
in the draft Clearwater-Nez Perce National Forest Plan (USDA 2007, p.
4), this plan has not been finalized (USDA in litt. 2010a, p. 2).
Information in our files, but not mentioned in the petition,
indicates that both species are considered Species of Greatest
Conservation Need by the IDFG (IDFG 2005, pp. 582-584). This level of
recognition by the State provides a common framework that enables
conservation partners, including Federal, tribal agencies, and local
government agencies, and private landowners, to jointly implement a
long-term approach for the benefit of both snowfly species (IDFG 2005,
p. v). Species of Greatest Conservation Need recognition also extends
some level of consideration under State, Federal, and local government
laws when project impacts are reviewed, such as for stormwater
pollution prevention plans.
We found the petition to be correct in that there are no existing
regulatory mechanisms for the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly. We
could not determine the existence of any threats the snowflies may
face, now or in the foreseeable future, that would indicate a need for
protective regulatory mechanisms. Because minimal information exists
concerning the population size, trends, habitat needs, and limiting
factors for both snowfly species, we have no substantial information to
suggest that the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms may pose
a threat to the continued existence of these species. In addition, as
noted above in Factor B and in the petition (p. 18), the straight and
Idaho snowflies are not considered a commercial species, and are not at
risk of overcollection. We therefore have no data related to the
straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly indicating any impact to either of
these species due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms
so as to potentially threaten the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly
with extinction, now or within the foreseeable future. Consequently, we
conclude that the petition does not present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that listing either the straight
snowfly or Idaho snowfly may be warranted based on the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued
Existence
The petition identifies two threat factors under Factor E: (1)
Small population size and vulnerability to stochastic events, and (2)
global climate change.
Small Population Size and Stochastic Events
Information Provided in the Petition
The petition describes the straight and Idaho snowflies as weak
fliers, with a limited dispersal potential that is decreased even
further by habitat disturbance (Petition, p. 19). According to the
petition, the population size of each of the species is unknown, but
presumably small, as no more than 89 individuals have ever been
reported from a single site, and most collections had fewer
individuals. The petition further states that smaller and fragmented
populations are generally at greater risk of extinction due to
predation, disease, and changing food supply, as well as from natural
disasters such as floods or droughts. Further, the loss of genetic
variability and reduced fitness due to inbreeding is also a concern for
small populations (Petition, p. 19).
[[Page 46249]]
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
The petitioners assert that the straight and Idaho snowflies
consist of small, isolated populations with restricted distributions,
and this condition, in conjunction with other threats to the species,
places them in imminent danger of extinction (Petition, p. 1).
According to the petition, the straight snowfly was last surveyed in
1989, and the Idaho snowfly was last surveyed in 1985. Therefore, these
surveys occurred more than 20 years ago. The petitioners presume that
population sizes for the species are small, based on the maximum number
of individuals historically collected from a single site (Petition, p.
7). We do not agree with the petitioners that the number of individuals
in past collections is in any way reflective of total population size
(Petition, p. 7). The number of individuals collected at any one time
in the past would have been dependent upon the methods and purpose of
that particular collection attempt, and cannot be assumed to be
indicative of total population size. There are not sufficient data to
reasonably estimate the size of populations of either of the two
snowfly species, either historically or at the present time. In
addition, it is not clear from the information provided in the petition
or available in our files whether the currently recognized range of
either species has been established through past targeted search
efforts or from incidental collections. According to the information
provided in the petition, no systematic surveys have been conducted for
either of the snowfly species in recent years (Petition, p. 7), and we
have no additional information available to us. We therefore do not
have sufficient information to suggest that the rangewide distribution,
either historical or current, of either species is known.
We recognize the inherent vulnerabilities of species with small
populations and restricted geographic ranges, and agree with the
petitioners that small populations are generally at greater risk of
extinction from deterministic threats or stochastic processes than
large populations. However, we do not consider a small population or
naturally restricted distribution alone to be a threat to species;
rather, these factors can be a vulnerability that may render the
species more susceptible to other threats, if they are present. Even if
we assume that the populations of the straight snowfly and Idaho
snowfly are small and restricted in range, based on the best available
information, we have no indication that other natural or anthropogenic
factors are likely to significantly threaten the existence of these
species. And again, at this point in time, we have no evidence to
suggest that the population abundance or distribution of either species
has been curtailed in any way.
In order to determine that there is substantial information that a
species may be endangered or threatened, we have to determine that the
species may actually be subject to specific significant threats; broad
statements about generalized threats to rare species do not
independently constitute substantial information that listing may be
warranted. The petition does not provide, nor do we have in our files,
information specific to the vulnerability of the straight or Idaho
snowfly to stochastic events either now or in the foreseeable future.
Furthermore, known collection surveys for both snowflies were last
conducted more than 20 years ago, so the current distribution and
population size of the straight or Idaho snowflies are unknown. The
petition presents no information, and we have none available in our
files, to suggest that the populations of either the straight snowfly
or the Idaho snowfly are unnaturally small or fragmented. Consequently,
in the absence of current distribution and population information, as
well as the lack of information identifying specific threats to the
species and linking those threats to the rarity of the species, we do
not consider small population sizes and stochastic events alone to be
threats for these species. We have no available substantial
information, and the petition presents none, to suggest that small
population size and stochastic events may be a threat of such
significance as to potentially threaten the straight snowfly or Idaho
snowfly with extinction, now or within the foreseeable future.
Global Climate Change
Information Provided in the Petition
The petition asserts that global climate change is a threat to the
straight and Idaho snowflies. According to the petition, a temperature
rise since the 1950s has shifted snowmelt more than 20 days earlier in
the Latah County area, and has decreased snow pack 30 to 45 percent in
the headwaters of the Potlatch River. The petition also reports that
studies predict that snow packs will be reduced by up to 60 percent in
some regions of the West, which, in turn, is expected to reduce
summertime flows in the next 50 years by 20 to 50 percent (Petition,
pp. 19-20).
According to the petition, the snowfly life cycle, in contrast to
many aquatic organisms, is more constrained by warm than cold water
temperatures (Petition, p. 20). The petition asserts that the effects
of climate change on the nymph stage could include: (1) Nymphs
remaining in diapause longer to avoid warm stream temperatures,
reducing their period of active feeding and growth; and (2) nymphs
exiting diapause into water temperatures that are too warm for their
survival (Petition, p. 20). However, the petition does not provide any
support for these statements. Citing one study of two stonefly species
in the genus AlloCapnia, the petition claims that remaining in diapause
longer to escape warmer weather conditions may not provide refugia for
nymphs because study results indicate that increased depth in the
hyporheic zone did not result in decreased temperatures (Petition, p.
20; McNutt 2003, p. 43). Two studies cited by petitioners showed that:
(1) Species-specific stream temperature ranges for stonefly egg and
nymph development have been documented in a study of Fennoscandian
species (Petition, p. 20; Lillehammer et al. 1989, entire); and (2)
another Capnia species (Capnia bifrons) failed to survive or have
successful egg and nymph development above certain water temperature
limits (Petition, p. 20; Elliot 1986, entire).
The petition states that the adult stonefly stage is also expected
to suffer as a result of a warming climate due to: (1) Untimely
emergence of adults that are not appropriate for mating and egg
maturation; and (2) impaired stonefly physiological conditions
resulting in reduced fertility and fecundity (Petition, p. 20). The
petition claims that intensifying climatic shifts in this region pose
serious threats to the straight and Idaho snowflies, largely via
reductions in the availability and suitability of their thermal habitat
(Petition, p. 20).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
It is possible that climate change could pose a threat to the
straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly if water levels, water temperature,
or other habitat variables that affect the snowflies change
significantly within the foreseeable future as a result. However, the
petition has presented no information, and we have none available in
our files, specific to the level of water flow or the thermal
environment required by either the
[[Page 46250]]
straight snowfly or the Idaho snowfly. The petitioners cite to the
studies of Lillehammer et al. (1989, entire) and Elliot (1986, entire)
in support of documentation of species-specific temperature ranges for
successful stonefly egg and nymph development. However, these studies
provide no information specific to either the straight snowfly or Idaho
snowfly. Although stoneflies in general are considered cool-water
species, the study of Lillehammer et al. (1989, p. 179) concludes that
``the characteristics of egg development in the Plecoptera, especially
with respect to water temperature, show considerable variation.'' Based
on this observed variation, it is likely not appropriate to use other
stonefly species as surrogates to inform us as to the specific habitat
requirements of the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly. The temperature
range for successful egg and nymph development for the straight and
Idaho snowflies is therefore unknown, as are temperatures tolerated by
adults of either species.
There are currently no models available that predict potential
climate change effects at a localized scale sufficient to ascertain the
likely magnitude of water temperature changes that might be experienced
within the range of the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly. Because what
may constitute suitable thermal habitat for the species is also
unknown, it is not possible to determine whether the effects of climate
change may become a significant threat to these species.
The information presented in the petition regarding climate change
is related to generalized effects on water flow and temperature; the
petition does not present any information specific to the straight or
Idaho snowflies or their habitat. The petition provides no specific
information, and we have none available in our files, to support the
statement that reductions in the availability or suitability of thermal
habitat for the two snowflies may occur as a result of climate change,
and if so, pose a serious threat. The petition presents no information,
and we have none available in our files, describing the habitat
requirements of either the straight snowfly or the Idaho snowfly. Given
the lack of current population and abundance information for either
species, coupled with the limited ability of current models to
ascertain whether climate change may be, or may become, a threat to
these species, the petition fails to present substantial information to
suggest that the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly may be threatened
with extinction due to global climate change. We have no available
substantial information, and the petition presents none, to suggest
that global climate change may be a threat of such significance as to
potentially threaten the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly with
extinction, now or within the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor E
The petition claims the populations of the straight snowfly and
Idaho snowfly are small and fragmented, and consequently at risk of
extinction from stochastic events. However, based on the information
presented in the petition and in our files, the population sizes, both
historical and current, for the straight snowfly and the Idaho snowfly
are unknown. As there have been no surveys or collections of either
species since the 1980s, there is no evidence to suggest that the
distribution of either species has changed. In addition, although the
petition presumes that the populations of both species are small and
fragmented, there is no evidence to support this assertion.
Even if populations of the straight snowfly and Idaho snowfly were
assumed to be small, we do not consider small population size, in and
of itself, to constitute a threat. We agree that small population size
may render a species more vulnerable to threats, if threats are
present. However, in the case of the straight snowfly and Idaho
snowfly, we have no indication that other factors may pose a
significant threat to the existence of either species. Because we lack
information identifying specific threats to the species and linking
those threats to the rarity of the species, we conclude that there is
no substantial information to suggest that small population size and
stochastic events may be a threat.
The petition additionally proposes that global climate change poses
a serious threat to the two snowflies, primarily due to reductions in
the availability and suitability of their thermal habitat. However the
petition presents no information, and we have none available in our
files, describing the specific habitat requirements of either the
straight snowfly or the Idaho snowfly. In addition, there are currently
no models available that predict potential climate change effects at a
localized scale sufficient to ascertain the likely magnitude of
temperature changes that might be experienced within the range of the
straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly. The petition provides no specific
information, and we have none available in our files, to support the
statement that reductions in the availability or suitability of thermal
habitat for the two snowflies as a result of climate change pose a
serious threat.
In summary, we could find no information in the petition or in our
files that would be sufficient to lead a reasonable person to conclude
the petitioned action may be warranted due to small population size or
global climate change. The petition's claims are not supported by the
information available. Consequently, we conclude that the petition does
not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that listing either the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly may be
warranted based on other natural or manmade factors affecting the
existence of the species, now or in the foreseeable future.
Finding
In evaluating a petition under the Act, the Secretary must make a
finding as to whether the petition ``presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be
warranted.'' Furthermore, as stated earlier, our regulatory standard
for substantial information 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)(1)). Therefore, in
evaluating the petition to list the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly
as endangered or threatened under the Act, we must determine whether
the petition presents substantial information indicating that the
threats acting on the species may be so significant that the species
may consequently be in danger of extinction at the present time
(endangered), or likely to become so within the foreseeable future
(threatened).
All species face some level of threat. In order to determine that
there is substantial information that the species may be in danger of
extinction now or in the foreseeable future, the available information
must go beyond the identification of presumptive threats and should
reasonably suggest that there are operative threats acting on the
species to the point that it may warrant protection under the Act. The
Service's Endangered Species Petition Management and Guidance (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service 1996,
p. 8) states ``Petition findings need to be rooted in the here-and-now
of a species' current status and whatever trends can be confidently
discerned.'' Information regarding the range, distribution, population
size, and status of the two snowflies is dated (more than 20 years old)
and very limited, which prevents
[[Page 46251]]
any reasonable assessment of current or historical distribution,
population size, or trends. In addition, the petitioners do not provide
information, and we have none available in our files, indicating that
the range or abundance of the snowflies has been curtailed.
Although the petition provides an inventory of various activities
or elements that may pose potential threats to the straight snowfly or
the Idaho snowfly, as data on their current population distribution,
abundance, and trend are completely lacking, and there is no evidence
that either species has suffered any population decline or reduction in
range, the petitioners' conclusion that both species ``are in imminent
danger of extinction'' (Petition, p. 5) appears to be purely
speculative. We have limited or no data on the actual exposure of the
straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly to the purported threats, or whether
that exposure, should it occur, would cause a negative population
response, let alone result in the present or threatened endangerment of
the species. All available threat information presented is generalized
in nature, and both the NatureServe accounts and the IDFG Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy concede that ``specific threats to Idaho
populations have not been identified'' (IDFG 2005, pp. 592-584;
NatureServe 2010a, p. 2; NatureServe 2010b, p. 1). While we may agree
with the petition's description of impaired aquatic habitat conditions
within the range of these two species, we simply have no information to
link the effect of these conditions with the snowfly populations.
Therefore the petition lacks substantial information to indicate the
threats listed in the petition are significantly impacting the straight
snowfly or Idaho snowfly or threatening their continued existence.
Based on the information presented in the petition and available in our
files, we have no evidence to suggest that threats may be acting on
either the straight snowfly or the Idaho snowfly such that either
species may currently be in danger of extinction or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future. Therefore, we conclude that a reasonable
person would not believe that the measure proposed in the petition may
be warranted.
On the basis of our determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the
Act, we find the petition does not present substantial scientific or
commercial information to indicate that listing either the straight
snowfly or Idaho snowfly as endangered or threatened under the Act is
warranted at this time. Although we will not review the status of these
species at this time, we encourage interested parties to continue to
gather data that will assist with the conservation of the straight
snowfly and Idaho snowfly. If you wish to provide information regarding
the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly you may submit your information
or materials to the State Supervisor, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office
(see ADDRESSES), at any time.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Idaho Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the
Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
Authority
The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: July 21, 2011.
Gregory E. Siekaniec,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-19445 Filed 8-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P