The regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-51, referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States. Section 319.56-28 of the regulations contains administrative instructions allowing the importation of tomatoes from various countries where the Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly, Ceratitis capitata ) is present.

We currently do not allow the importation of fresh tomatoes from any member of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). The ECOWAS comprises the following members: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Togo. The government of Senegal has requested that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) amend the regulations to allow fresh tomatoes ( Solanum lycopersicum ) to be imported from Senegal into the continental United States. Because of the similar pest risks present in the other countries in the ECOWAS, we prepared a regional pest risk assessment (PRA) and a risk management document (RMD) for the importation of tomatoes from any ECOWAS member State. Copies of the PRA and the RMD may be obtained from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).

The PRA, titled “Importation of Tomatoes, Solanum lycopersicum, from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) into the Continental United States” (2009), evaluates the risks associated with the importation of tomatoes into the continental United States from the ECOWAS. The PRA identified 10 pests that could be introduced into the United States through the importation of tomatoes. Seven of the pests were determined to pose a high pest risk potential:

Three of the pests were determined to pose a medium pest risk potential:

APHIS has determined that measures beyond standard port-of-entry inspection are required to mitigate the risks posed by these plant pests. Therefore, we are proposing to allow the importation of tomatoes from the ECOWAS into the continental United States only if they are produced in accordance with a systems approach to mitigate pest risk as outlined below. We are proposing to amend § 319.56-28 by adding a new paragraph (h) to the end of the section that would set out requirements for the importation of fresh tomatoes from the ECOWAS.

Tomatoes from the ECOWAS would have to be grown in approved production sites registered with the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of the exporting country. Initial approval of production sites would be completed jointly by the NPPO of the exporting country and APHIS. The NPPO of the exporting country would have to visit and inspect the production sites monthly, beginning 2 months before the harvest and continuing through the end of the shipping season. APHIS would be able to monitor the production sites, if necessary. This condition would ensure that the required phytosanitary measures are properly implemented throughout the process of growing and packing tomatoes for export to the United States.

Production sites for tomatoes would also have to be pest-exclusionary structures (PES). The PES would be required to have self-closing double doors, and all openings, including vents, to the outside of the PES would have to be covered by screening with mesh openings of not more than 1.6 mm. Screening with openings of not more than 1.6 mm will prevent introduction of fruit flies, moths, and mealybugs.

In addition, no shade trees could be grown within 10 meters of the entry door of the PES and no other fruit fly host plants could be grown within 50 meters of the entry door of the PES. These requirements would reduce the pest pressure of fruit flies outside the place of production because, during hot, sunny weather, pests congregate in shaded areas for survival.

The NPPO of the exporting country would be required to set and maintain fruit fly traps with an APHIS-approved protein bait inside the PES, beginning 2 months prior to the start of the shipping season and continuing through the end of the harvest. The traps would have to be set at a rate of eight traps per hectare, with a minimum of four traps in each PES, and checked every 7 days. We also propose to require the NPPO of the exporting country to maintain records of trap placement, trap maintenance, and captures of any fruit flies of concern. The trapping records would have to be maintained for 1 year and made available to APHIS upon request.

Capture of a single fruit fly of concern inside a PES would immediately result in cancellation of exports to the United States from that PES. The detection of a fruit fly of concern in a consignment at the port of entry that is traced back to a PES would also result in immediate cancellation of exports to the United States from that PES. In both cases, exports from the PES in question could not resume until APHIS and the NPPO of the exporting country have mutually determined that the risk has been properly mitigated.

The stem and calyx of each tomato would have to be removed. Removal of the stem and calyx would eliminate hiding places for small pests, thereby allowing the pests to be detected during the NPPO's inspection.

While being used for packing tomatoes for export to the United States, the packinghouses would only be allowed to accept fruit from registered production sites. This requirement would reduce the risk that quarantine pests are present on or in tomatoes exported to the United States.

In addition, no shade trees could be grown within 10 meters of the entry door of the packinghouses, and no other fruit fly host plants could be grown within 50 meters of the entry door of the packinghouses. As mentioned earlier with regard to production sites, these requirements would reduce the pest pressure of fruit flies outside the packinghouse.

The tomatoes would have to be safeguarded by an insect-proof screen or plastic tarpaulin while in transit to a packinghouse and while awaiting packing. Tomatoes would have to be packed for shipment to the United States within 24 hours of harvest in insect-proof cartons or containers, or covered with insect-proof mesh or a plastic tarpaulin. These safeguards would have to remain intact until arrival in the United States or the consignment would not be allowed to enter the United States. Containers transported by sea would have to be kept closed if stored within 20 meters of a fruit fly host prior to being loaded onto the vessel. These measures would prevent harvested fruit from being infested by quarantine pests.

Only commercial consignments of tomatoes would be allowed to be imported. Commercial consignments, as defined in § 319.56-2, are consignments that an inspector identifies as having been imported for sale and distribution. Such identification is based on a variety of indicators, including, but not limited to: Quantity of produce, type of packaging, identification of grower or packinghouse on the packaging, and documents consigning the fruits or vegetables to a wholesaler or retailer. Produce grown commercially is less likely to be infested with plant pests than noncommercial consignments. Noncommercial consignments are more prone to infestations because the commodity is often ripe to overripe, could be of a variety with unknown susceptibility to pests, and is often grown with little or no pest control.

Each consignment of tomatoes would have to be inspected by the NPPO of the exporting country and found free of the quarantine pests listed earlier. Each consignment would also have to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of the exporting country, providing the additional declaration “These tomatoes were grown in registered production sites in [name of country] and the consignment has been inspected and found free of quarantine pests.” This requirement would certify that the provisions of the regulations have been met.

This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).

This proposed rule would allow the importation of tomatoes from the member States of the ECOWAS under a systems approach. Entities potentially affected by this proposed rule are U.S. producers of fresh tomatoes (classified under Other Vegetable (except Potato) and Melon Farming, NAICS 111219) and importers of fresh tomatoes. Vegetable-producing establishments are classified as small if their annual receipts are not more than $750,000. According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture (which has the most recent data on farm sizes), there were 25,809 farms producing tomatoes in the United States. About 68 percent of these farms had less than 1 acre in tomatoes. Overall, 25,128 farms (97.4 percent) had a total of 39,879 acres in tomatoes (about 9 percent of the total planted area) and are considered small, with an average of about 1.6 acres and an average annual income of about $8,000 in 2007. The remaining 2.6 percent of the farms planted a total of 402,346 acres in tomatoes (91 percent of the planted area). They averaged 591 acres, with an average annual income of about $3 million.

The impact of potential tomato imports on U.S. small-entity producers as a result of this rule would be small. The annual decrease in producer welfare per small entity is estimated to be less than $4 or about 0.05 percent of average annual sales by small entities, when we assume that 1,934 metric tons of tomatoes would be exported to the United States from ECOWAS because of this rule. The dollar decrease in welfare for most small tomato producers would be even smaller, given that the majority planted less than an acre in tomatoes.

Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This proposed rule would allow tomatoes to be imported into the United States from the ECOWAS. If this proposed rule is adopted, State and local laws and regulations regarding tomatoes imported under this rule would be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public and would remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. If this proposed rule is adopted, no retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Please send written comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. APHIS-2011-0012. Please send a copy of your comments to: (1) Docket No. APHIS-2011-0012, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238, and (2) Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA, room 404-W, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250. A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this proposed rule.

APHIS is proposing to amend the fruits and vegetables regulations to allow the importation of tomatoes from the member States of the ECOWAS into the continental United States. As a condition of entry, tomatoes from the ECOWAS would be subject to a systems approach that would include requirements for pest exclusion at the production site, fruit fly trapping and monitoring, and procedures for packing the tomatoes. The tomatoes would also be required to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization of the exporting country with an additional declaration that the tomatoes had been produced in accordance with the proposed requirements. This action would allow for the importation of tomatoes from the ECOWAS into the continental United States while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of quarantine pests.

The information collection activities would include a phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration, production site registration, recordkeeping, and inspection of production sites.

We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses).

Estimate of burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3.8 hours per response.

Respondents: Foreign officials, importers of tomatoes from ECOWAS.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 2.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 2.5.

Estimated annual number of responses: 5.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 19 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2908.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2908.

Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA 2011-0585 and Airspace Docket No. 11-AWP-9) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-0585 and Airspace Docket No. 11-AWP-9”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057.

Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Blythe Airport, Blythe, CA. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using the RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at Blythe Airport. This action would enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at the airport.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in this Order.

The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it creates additional controlled airspace at Blythe Airport, Blythe, CA.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. Electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines are available under the help section of the Web site. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Please follow the instructions. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: http://www.archives.gov and the Government Printing Office's Web page at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

In the December 16, 2009, Final Rule  1 adopting the 2009 edition of the MUTCD, the FHWA made clarifying revisions to the text of Section 1A.09 and to the definition of Standard in Section 1A.13 to remove conflicting language and provide consistency in the intended use of engineering judgment and engineering studies. The Final Rule deleted the following 2003 MUTCD text from the GUIDANCE in Section 1A.09 of the 2009 MUTCD: “The decision to use a particular device at a particular location should be made on the basis of either an engineering study or the application of engineering judgment. Thus, while this Manual provides Standards, Guidance, and Options for design and application of traffic control devices, this Manual should not be considered a substitute for engineering judgment. Engineering judgment should be exercised in the selection and application of traffic control devices * * *” Additionally, in paragraph 1 of Section 1A.13, the following sentence was added to the definition of Standard: “Standard statements shall not be modified or compromised based on engineering judgment or engineering study.”

It was not the intention of the FHWA to change the longstanding meaning of Standard or remove the appropriate application of engineering studies or engineering judgment where the language of a particular Standard explicitly or implicitly requires it.

Subsequent to the issuance of the Final Rule for the 2009 MUTCD, the FHWA received correspondence and resolutions from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD), and letters from several State DOTs, expressing concerns that the removal of language from Section 1A.09 and the addition of the sentence to the Section 1A.13 definition of Standard had the effect of removing the flexibility of highway agencies to address field conditions. The FHWA agrees with some of the concerns and especially believes that, even with the clarifications adopted in the 2009 MUTCD, the language concerning the appropriate use of engineering studies and engineering judgment in relation to Standards in the MUTCD is still unclear. Therefore, the FHWA is proposing amendments to Section 1A.09 and to paragraph 1 of Section 1A.13 at this time.

The text of this proposed revision of the 2009 edition of the MUTCD is available for inspection and copying, as prescribed in 49 CFR part 7, at the FHWA Office of Transportation Operations (HOTO-1), 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Furthermore, the text of the proposed revision is available on the MUTCD Internet Web site http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov, showing the current MUTCD text of Section 1A.09 and paragraph 1 of Section 1A.13 with proposed additions in blue underlined text and proposed deletions as red strikeout text. The complete current 2009 edition of the MUTCD is also available on the same Internet Web site. A copy of the proposed revision is also available at http://www.regulations.gov under the docket number noted above.

This NPA is being issued to provide an opportunity for public comment on the desirability of these proposed amendments to the MUTCD. Based on the comments received and its own experience, the FHWA may issue a Final Rule concerning the proposed changes included in this notice.

It should be noted that on April 22, 2010, an NPA was published in the Federal Register , 2 proposing to revise the 2009 MUTCD by adding Standards, Guidance, Options, and Support information regarding maintaining minimum retroreflectivity of longitudinal pavement markings. The deadline for comments to that docket has passed and the FHWA is currently reviewing the docket comments received. In the April 22, 2010, NPA, it was noted that the proposed revisions regarding maintaining minimum retroreflectivity of longitudinal pavement markings would be designated as Revision 1 to the 2009 edition of the MUTCD. Actual designation of revision numbers will depend on the relative timing of any Final Rules that may be issued by the FHWA as a result of the April 22, 2010, NPA, this NPA, or any other rulemakings related to the MUTCD. Whichever of the Final Rules is issued first would be designated as Revision 1 and subsequent Final Rules will be numbered accordingly.

The FHWA requests that commenters cite the Section number and paragraph number of the proposed MUTCD text for which each specific comment to the docket about the proposed text is concerned, to help make the FHWA's docket comment review process more efficient.

A summary of the proposed changes in Part 1 of the MUTCD is included in the following discussion.

1. In Section 1A.09 Engineering Study and Engineering Judgment, the FHWA proposes to add a new GUIDANCE paragraph stating that the decision to use a particular device at a particular location should be made on the basis of either an engineering study or the application of engineering judgment. This proposed GUIDANCE reinstates one of the GUIDANCE sentences in the 2003 MUTCD that was removed in the final rule for the 2009 MUTCD.

Additionally, the FHWA proposes to add a new OPTION paragraph stating that when an engineering study or the application of engineering judgment determines that unusual site-specific conditions at a particular location make compliance with a Standard statement in this Manual impossible or impractical, an agency may deviate from that Standard statement at that location. The FHWA believes that the addition of this flexibility is needed in limited cases because some STANDARD statements in the MUTCD cannot possibly address all the various unusual field conditions that, while relatively rare, do exist on the street and highway network in ways that can make it impossible or impractical to meet the precise requirements at such a particular location. It is not intended that a highway agency be authorized to adopt or implement broad policies or practices that deviate from a Standard on a blanket basis jurisdiction-wide, region-wide, on all highways of a particular class, or using similar criteria. The MUTCD provisions that are STANDARDS are intended to be mandatory, as opposed to merely recommended. As such, it is inappropriate to deviate from a STANDARD for any reason other than an engineering determination that the unusual site conditions at a particular location make it impossible or impractical to meet the explicit requirement of the STANDARD at that location.

2. In Section 1A.13 Definitions of Headings, Words, and Phrases in This Manual, the FHWA proposes to modify Paragraph 1 by removing the sentence that was added to the definition of Standard in the Final Rule for the 2009 MUTCD. The sentence proposed for removal currently states “Standard statements shall not be modified or compromised based on engineering judgment or engineering study.” The FHWA believes that, with the proposed additional clarifying language in Section 1A.09, this sentence would no longer be needed.

The FHWA has determined that this action would be a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and within the meaning of U.S. Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures because of the significant public interest in the MUTCD. The proposed changes in the MUTCD would provide additional clarification, guidance, and flexibility in the application of traffic control devices. The FHWA believes that the uniform application of traffic control devices will greatly improve the traffic operations efficiency and roadway safety. The standards, guidance, and support are also used to create uniformity and to enhance safety and mobility at little additional expense to public agencies or the motoring public. These changes are not anticipated to adversely affect, in any material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes would not create a serious inconsistency with any other agency's action or materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. It is anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking would be minimal; therefore, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of these changes on small entities and has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would provide clarification and additional flexibility.

This proposed rule would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, March 22, 1995). The proposed changes provide additional guidance, flexibility, and clarification and would not require an expenditure of funds. This action would not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $140.8 million or more in any 1 year (2 U.S.C. 1532).

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 dated August 4, 1999, and the FHWA has determined that this action would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this rulemaking will not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions. The MUTCD is incorporated by reference in 23 CFR Part 655, subpart F. These proposed amendments are in keeping with the Secretary of Transportation's authority under 23 U.S.C. 109(d), 315, and 402(a) to promulgate uniform guidelines to promote the safe and efficient use of the highway. The overriding safety benefits of the uniformity prescribed by the MUTCD are shared by all of the State and local governments, and changes made to this rule are directed at enhancing safety. To the extent that these proposed amendments override any existing State requirements regarding traffic control devices, they do so in the interest of national uniformity.

The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175, dated November 6, 2000, and believes that it would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and would not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a significant energy action under that order because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211 is not required.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA has determined that this action does not contain collection information requirements for purposes of the PRA.

This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The FHWA certifies that this action would not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.

The FHWA does not anticipate that this action would affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

The agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has determined that it would not have any effect on the quality of the environment.

A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA proposes to amend title 23, Code of Federal Regulations part 655 as follows:

In 2007, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) embarked on a comprehensive review of the entire STCW Convention and STCW Code. The Coast Guard held public meetings prior to each one of the IMO meetings in London for the review to determine what positions U.S. delegations should advocate and to exchange views about amendments to STCW that were under discussion. In addition, the Coast Guard also took advantage of advisory committee meetings, specifically Merchant Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC), to discuss developments and implementation of the requirements relating to the 2010 amendments. The 2010 amendments resulting from that review were adopted on June 25, 2010. The Convention is not self-implementing; therefore, the United States, as a signatory to the STCW Convention, must initiate regulatory changes to ensure full implementation of amendments to the STCW Convention and STCW Code.

The Coast Guard proposed, in an SNPRM published in the Federal Register on August 1, 2001, to implement these provisions, and to clearly separate the two licensing schemes for STCW and domestic endorsements, pursuant to the Convention and under the authority of Title 46, United States Code, section 2103 and chapters 71 and 73.

Parties to the STCW Convention have port state control authority to detain vessels that do not appear to be in compliance with the Convention. If U.S. regulations are non-compliant with the STCW Convention and STCW Code, there is a risk that U.S. ships will be detained in foreign ports by member nations and that U.S. mariners would not be able to seek employment on foreign flag vessels.

All submissions received must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and the docket number for this action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meetings, contact Mr. Rogers Henderson at the telephone number or e-mail address indicated under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

This document consists of both a proposed rule to list the Chupadera springsnail as endangered and proposed critical habitat designation for the Chupadera springsnail.

We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from the public, other concerned governmental and Tribal agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:

(1) The historical and current status and distribution of the Chupadera springsnail, its biology and ecology, the range and population size of this species, including the locations of any additional populations of this species, and any information on the biological or ecological requirements of the species.

(2) Information relevant to the factors that are the basis for making a listing determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), which are:

(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range;

(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

(c) Disease or predation;

(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or

(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence and threats to the species or its habitat.

(3) Information about any ongoing conservation measures for, or threats to, the Chupadera springsnail and its habitat. We are particularly interested in receiving any information related to the potential effects of climate change on the Chupadera springsnail or its habitat.

The following information regarding the potential economic and other impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation is requested solely so that we may consider the potential effects of critical habitat designation in the final rule.

(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as “critical habitat” under the Act including whether there are threats to the species from human activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether the benefit of designation would outweigh threats to the species caused by the designation, such that the designation of critical habitat is prudent.

(2) Specific information on:

(a) The amount and distribution of Chupadera springsnail habitat;

(b) What occupied areas containing features essential to the conservation of the species should be included in the designation and why; and

(c) What areas not occupied are essential for the conservation of the species and why.

(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.

(4) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts on small entities or families, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts.

(5) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and comments.

You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in the ADDRESSES section.

We will post your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—on http://www.regulations.gov . If you provide personal identifying information, such as your street address, phone number, or e-mail address, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov , or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

We identified the Chupadera springsnail as a candidate for listing in the May 22, 1984, Notice of Review of Invertebrate Wildlife for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species (49 FR 21664). Candidates are those fish, wildlife, and plants for which we have on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support preparation of a listing proposal, but for which development of a listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing activities. The Chupadera springsnail was petitioned for listing on November 20, 1985, and was found to be warranted for listing but precluded by higher priority activities on October 4, 1988 (53 FR 38969). The Chupadera springsnail has been included in all of our subsequent annual Candidate Notices of Review (54 FR 554, January 6, 1989; 56 FR 58804, November 21, 1991; 59 FR 58982, November 15, 1994; 61 FR 7595, February 28, 1996; 62 FR 49397, September 19, 1997; 64 FR 57533, October 25, 1999; 66 FR 54807, October 30, 2001; 67 FR 40657, June 13, 2002; 69 FR 24875, May 4, 2004; 70 FR 24869, May 11, 2005; 71 FR 53755, September 12, 2006; 72 FR 69033, December 6, 2007; 73 FR 75175, December 10, 2008; 74 FR 57803, November 9, 2009; and 75 FR 69221, November 10, 2010). In 2002, the listing priority number was increased from 8 to 2 in accordance with our priority guidance published on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098). A listing priority of 2 reflects a species with threats that are both imminent and high in magnitude.

The Chupadera springsnail ( Pyrgulopsis chupaderae ) is a tiny (1.6 to 3.0 millimeters (mm) (0.06 to 0.12 inches (in) tall) freshwater snail (Taylor 1987, p. 25; Hershler 1994, p. 30) in the family Hydrobiidae. The pigmentation of the body and operculum (covering over the shell opening) of this species is much more intense than in any other species in the genus Pyrgulopsis (Taylor 1987, p. 26). The Chupadera springsnail was first described by Taylor (1987, pp. 24-27) as Fontelicella chupaderae . Hershler (1994, pp. 11, 13), in his review of the genus Pyrgulopsis , found that the species previously assigned to the genus Fontelicella had the appropriate morphological characteristics for inclusion in the genus Pyrgulopsis and formally placed them within that genus. Although the genetic characteristics of P. chupaderae have not been analyzed, based on its unique morphology and geographic isolation, it is a valid species.

Springsnails are strictly aquatic, and respiration occurs through an internal gill. Springsnails in the genus Pyrgulopsis are egg-layers with a single small egg capsule deposited on a hard surface (Hershler 1998, p. 14). The larval stage is completed in the egg capsule, and upon hatching, the snails emerge into their adult habitat (Brusca and Brusca 1990, p. 759; Hershler and Sada 2002, p. 256). The snail exhibits separate sexes; physical differences are noticeable between them, with females being larger than males. Because of their small size and dependence on water, significant dispersal likely does not occur, although on rare occasions aquatic snails have been transported by becoming attached to the feathers and feet of migratory birds (Roscoe 1955, p. 66; Dundee et al . 1967, pp. 89-90). Hydrobiid snails feed primarily on periphyton, which is a complex mixture of algae, bacteria, and microbes that occurs on submerged surfaces in aquatic environments (Mladenka 1992, pp. 46, 81; Allan 1995, p. 83; Hershler and Sada 2002, p. 256; Lysne et al . 2007, p. 649). The lifespan of most aquatic snails is 9 to 15 months (Pennak 1989, p. 552).

Snails in the family Hydrobiidae were once much more widely distributed during the wetter Pleistocene Age (1.6 million to 10,000 years ago). As ancient lakes and streams dried, springsnails became patchily distributed across the landscape as geographically isolated populations exhibiting a high degree of endemism (species found only in a particular region, area, or spring) (Bequart and Miller 1973, p. 214; Taylor 1987, pp. 5-6; Shepard 1993, p. 354; Hershler and Sada 2002, p. 255). Hydrobiid snails occur in springs, seeps, marshes, spring pools, outflows, and diverse flowing water habitats. Although hydrobiid snails as a group are found in a wide variety of aquatic habitats, they are sensitive to water quality and each species is usually found within relatively narrow habitat parameters (Sada 2008, p. 59). Proximity to spring vents, where water emerges from the ground, plays a key role in the life history of springsnails. Many springsnail species exhibit decreased abundance farther away from spring vents, presumably due to their need for stable water chemistry (Hershler 1994, p. 68; Hershler 1998, p. 11; Hershler and Sada 2002, p. 256; Martinez and Thome 2006, p. 14). Several habitat parameters of springs, such as substrate, dissolved carbon dioxide, dissolved oxygen, temperature, conductivity, and water depth, have been shown to influence the distribution and abundance of Pyrgulopsis (O'Brien and Blinn 1999, pp. 231-232; Mladenka and Minshall 2001, pp. 209-211; Malcom et al. 2005, p. 75; Martinez and Thome 2006, pp. 12-15; Lysne et al. 2007, p. 650). Dissolved salts such as calcium carbonate may also be important factors because they are essential for shell formation (Pennak 1989, p. 552).

The Chupadera springsnail is endemic to Willow Spring and an unnamed spring of similar size 0.5 kilometers (km) (0.3 miles (mi)) north of Willow Spring at the southeast end of the Chupadera Mountains in Socorro County, New Mexico (Taylor 1987, pp. 20-22; Mehlhop 1993, p. 3; Lang 1998, p. 36). The two springs where Chupadera springsnail has been documented are on two hillsides where groundwater discharges flow through volcanic gravels containing sand, mud, and aquatic plants (Taylor 1987, p. 26). Water temperatures in areas of the springbrook (the stream flowing from the springhead) currently occupied by the springsnail range from 15 to 25 degrees Celsius (°C) (59 to 77 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) over all seasons (1997 to 1998). Water velocities range from 0.01 to 0.19 meters per second (m/s) (0.03 to 0.6 feet per second (ft/s)) (Lang 2009, p. 1). In 1998, when Willow Spring was last visited, the springbrook was 0.5 to 2 meters (m) (1.6 to 6.6 feet (ft)) wide, 6 to 15 centimeters (cm) (2.4 to 6 in) deep, and approximately 38 m (125 ft) long, upstream of where it entered a pond created by a berm (small earthen dam) across the springbrook (Lang 2009, p. 1).

Current status of the population at Willow Spring is unknown because access has been denied by the landowner since 1999, despite requests for access to monitor the springsnail (Carman 2004, pp. 1-2; 2005, pp. 1-5; NMDGF 2007, p. 12). Prior surveys show the springsnail population to be locally abundant in this location and stable through 1999 (Lang 1998, p. 36; Lang 1999, p. A5); therefore, we presume the species still persists at Willow Spring. At the unnamed spring, repeated sampling between 1995 and 1997 yielded no snails, and the habitat at that spring has been significantly degraded (devoid of riparian vegetation due to trampling by cattle, and the benthic habitat was covered with manure) (Lang 1998, p. 59; Lang 1999, p. B13). Therefore, the species is likely extirpated from this unnamed spring (NMDGF 1996, p. 16; Lang 1999, p. B13).

Springsnail dispersal is primarily limited to aquatic habitat connections (Hershler et al . 2005, p. 1755). Once extirpated from a spring, natural recolonization of that spring or other nearby springs is very rare.

Section 4 of the Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth procedures for adding species to 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; and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.

The principal threats to the habitat of Chupadera springsnail at Willow Spring include groundwater depletion, livestock grazing, and spring modification (Lang 1998, p. 59; NMDGF 2002, p. 45). These threats are intensified by the fact that the species' known historic range was only two small springs, and it has been extirpated from one of the known locations. Other potential threats, such as fire and recreational use at the springs, were considered but no information was found that indicated these may be affecting the species at this time.

Habitat loss due to groundwater depletion threatens the Chupadera springsnail. Since spring ecosystems rely on water discharged to the surface from underground aquifers, groundwater depletion can result in the destruction of habitat by the drying of springs and cause the loss of spring fauna. For example, groundwater depletion from watering a lawn adjacent to a small spring (Snail Spring) in Cochise County, Arizona, has reduced habitat availability of the San Bernardino springsnail ( Pyrgulopsis bernardina ) at that location because of the loss of flowing water to the spring (Malcom et al . 2003, p. 18; Cox et al . 2007, p. 2). Also, in Pecos County, Texas, two large spring systems (Comanche Springs and Leon Springs) were completely lost to drying when irrigation wells were activated in the supporting local aquifer (Scudday 1977, pp. 515-516). Spring drying or flow reduction from groundwater pumping has also been documented in the Roswell (August 9, 2005; 70 FR 46304) and Mimbres Basins (Summers 1976, pp. 62, 65) of New Mexico.

Area groundwater use may significantly increase due to Highland Springs Ranch, a developing subdivision in the immediate vicinity of Chupadera springsnail habitat. Beginning in 2007, Highland Springs Ranch is being developed in four phases with approximately 650 lots ranging from 8 hectares (ha) (20 acres (ac)) to 57 ha (140 ac). There is no central water system, so each homeowner is responsible for drilling an individual water well. In Highland Springs Ranch, homeowners are entitled to 629 cubic meters (0.51 acre-feet) of water per year (New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (NMOSE) 2009).

Because of the close proximity of the subdivision to Willow Spring (the northern boundary of lot 42A of Willow Springs Ranch, a phase of Highland Springs Ranch, is approximately 91 m (300 ft) from Willow Spring), it appears likely that groundwater pumping could affect the discharge from the spring through depletion of groundwater. Under normal conditions Willow Spring has a very small discharge (Lang 2009, p. 1), and, therefore, any reduction in available habitat from declining spring flows would be detrimental to the Chupadera springsnail. Given the close proximity of the unnamed spring (0.5 km (0.3 mi)) to Willow Spring, and because they both supported the Chupadera springsnail historically, we believe both springs are fed by the same groundwater aquifer. Thus, groundwater depletion that would affect spring flow at Willow Spring would also likely affect the unnamed spring.

The Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge western boundary is located about 0.8 km (0.5 mi) east of the spring where Chupadera springsnail occurs, providing protection from development and groundwater depletion for much of the land east of the spring.

In addition, any decreases in regional precipitation due to prolonged drought will further stress groundwater availability and increase the risk of diminishment or drying of the springs. The current, multiyear drought in the western United States, including the Southwest, is the most severe drought recorded since 1900 (Overpeck and Udall 2010, p. 1642). In addition, numerous climate change models predict an overall decrease in annual precipitation in the southwestern United States and northern Mexico (see Factor E, Climate Change below). Recent regional drought may have affected habitat for Chupadera springsnail. For example, the extreme drought of 2002 resulted in drying streams across the State, with nearly all of the major river basins in New Mexico at historic low flow levels (New Mexico Drought Task Force 2002, p. 1). Because of our inability to access Willow Spring, we do not have information on how this drought affected the Chupadera springsnail.

Drought affects both surface and groundwater resources and can lead to diminished water quality (Woodhouse and Overpeck 1998, p. 2693; MacRae et al . 2001, pp. 4, 10) in addition to reducing groundwater quantities. The small size of the springbrooks where the Chupadera springsnails reside (1.5 m (5 ft) wide or less) makes them particularly susceptible to drying, increased water temperatures, and freezing. The springs do not have to cease flowing completely to have an adverse effect on springsnail populations. Because these springs are so small, any reductions in the flow rates from the springs can reduce the available habitat for the springsnails, increasing the risk of extinction. Decreased spring flow can lead to a decrease in habitat availability, an increase in water temperature fluctuations, a decrease in dissolved oxygen levels, and an increase in salinity (MacRae et al . 2001, p. 4). Water temperatures and factors such as dissolved oxygen in springs do not typically fluctuate, and springsnails are narrowly adapted to spring conditions and are sensitive to changes in water quality (Hershler 1998, p. 11). Groundwater depletion can lead to loss and degradation of Chupadera springsnail habitat and presents a substantial threat to the species.

It is estimated that livestock grazing has damaged approximately 80 percent of stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States (Belsky et al . 1999, p. 419). The damage occurs from increased sedimentation, decreased water quality, and trampling and overgrazing stream banks where succulent (high water content) forage exists (Armour et al . 1994, p. 10; Fleischner 1994, p. 631; Belsky et al . 1999, p. 419).

The damage from livestock grazing on spring ecosystems can alter or remove springsnail habitat, resulting in restricted distribution or extirpation of springsnails. For example, cattle trampling at a spring in Owens Valley, California, reduced banks to mud and sparse grass, limiting the occurrence of the endangered Fish Slough springsnail ( Pyrgulopsis pertubata ) (Bruce and White 1998, pp. 3-4). Poorly managed livestock use of springbrooks can directly negatively affect springsnails through contamination of aquatic habitat from feces and urine, habitat degradation of the springbrook by trampling of substrate and loss of aquatic and riparian vegetation, and crushing of individual springsnails.

Lang (1998, p. 59) reported that the unnamed spring was heavily impacted by cattle because it was devoid of riparian vegetation, and the gravel and cobbles were covered with mud and manure. It appears that overgrazing and access to the aquatic habitat of the spring by livestock caused the extirpation of the Chupadera springsnail population from this unnamed spring (NMDGF 1996, p. 16; Lang 1999, p. A5). Grazing was occurring at Willow Spring in 1999 (the last time the spring was visited) (Lang 1999, p. A5), and the Service has no information that grazing practices have changed since that time. Continued use of the springs by livestock presents a substantial threat to the Chupadera springsnail.

Spring modification occurs when attempts are made to increase flow through excavation at the springhead, when the springhead is tapped to direct the flow into a pipe and then into a tank or a pond, when excavation around the springhead creates a pool, inundating the springhead, or when the springbrook is dammed to create a pool downstream of the springbrook. Because springsnails are typically most abundant at the springhead where water chemistry and water quality are normally stable, any modification of the springhead could be detrimental to springsnail populations. In addition, any modification or construction done at the springhead could also affect individuals downstream through siltation of habitat. Because springsnails are typically found in shallow flowing water, inundation that alters springsnail habitat by changing water depth, velocity, substrate composition, vegetation, and water chemistry can cause population reduction or extirpation. For example, inundation has negatively affected populations of other springsnails such as Koster's springsnail ( Juturnia kosteri ) and Roswell springsnail ( Pyrgulopsis roswellensis ) at Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge and caused their extirpation from North Spring (NMDGF 2004, p. 33; 70 FR 46304, August 9, 2005).

The springhead at Willow Spring has been modified through impoundment of the springbrook to maintain a pump and improve water delivery systems to cattle (Lang 1998, p. 59). It appears that springbrook impoundment has only occurred downstream of the source, leaving some appropriate springbrook habitat intact upstream (Taylor 1987, p. 26). At the last visit to the spring in 1999, the habitat at the spring was of sufficient quality to sustain the Chupadera springsnail, but any subsequent alterations could be catastrophic for the species. Spring modification, either at the springhead or in the springbrook, is a threat to the Chupadera springsnail.

The geographically small range of the Chupadera springsnail increases the risk of extinction from any effects associated with other threats (NMDGF 2002, p. 1). When species are limited to small, isolated habitats, like the Chupadera springsnail in one small arid spring system, they are more likely to become extinct due to a local event that negatively effects the population (Shepard 1993, pp. 354-357; McKinney 1997, p. 497; Minckley and Unmack 2000, pp. 52-53).

The natural historic range of the Chupadera springsnail includes only two small spring sites. As a result of habitat alteration at the unnamed spring, the species now occurs only at Willow Spring (Lang 1999, p. B13). We have no information on the current status of the species because access to Willow Spring has been continually denied since 1999 (Carman 2004, p. 1-2; Carman 2005, p. 1-5; NMDGF 2007, p. 12). The springsnail is limited to aquatic habitats in small spring systems and has minimal mobility, so it is unlikely its range will ever expand. As a result, if the population at Willow Spring were extirpated for any reason, the species would be extinct, since there are no other sources of this springsnail from which to recolonize. This situation makes the magnitude of impact of any possible threat very high. In other words, the resulting effects of any of the threat factors under consideration here, even if they are relatively small on a temporal or geographic scale, could result in complete extinction of the species.

Therefore, because the Chupadera springsnail is restricted to a single small site, it is particularly susceptible to extinction if its habitat is degraded or destroyed. While the small, reduced range does not represent an independent threat to the species, it does substantially increase the risk of extinction from the effects of all other threats, including those addressed in this analysis, and those that could occur in the future from unknown sources.

In summary, the Chupadera springsnail is threatened by the present destruction and modification of its habitat and range. Groundwater depletion due to new wells from nearby subdivision developments, in addition to droughts, is likely resulting in reduced flow at the spring that supports the species. Cattle grazing is occurring at both historically occupied sites and has resulted in the extirpation of the species at one of these springs. Grazing at these sites is likely to continue in the future. Finally, springhead and springbrook modification have affected Chupadera springsnail habitat at Willow Spring, and further modification may have occurred since the last visit to this site in 1999. Because of the extremely small and reduced range of the species, these threats have an increased risk of resulting in extinction of the Chupadera springsnail. These threats are already occurring, they affect the full historical range of the species, and they result in the species being at risk of extinction.

There are very few people who are interested in or study springsnails, and those who do are sensitive to their rarity and endemism. Consequently, collection for scientific or educational purposes is very limited. As far as we know, because the Chupadera springsnail occurs on private land with limited access, there has been no collection since 1999 when NMDGF made its last collection (Lang 2000, p. C5). There are no known commercial or recreational uses of the springsnails. For these reasons we find that the Chupadera springsnail is not threatened by overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.

The Chupadera springsnail is not known to be affected or threatened by any disease. At the time the spring was last surveyed, no nonnative predatory species were present. However, any future introduction of a nonnative species into habitat of the Chupadera springsnail could be catastrophic to the springsnail. The Chupadera springsnail has an extremely small and reduced range, and a nonnative predator or competitor has an increased risk of resulting in extinction of the Chupadera springsnail. Because there are no known nonnative species present, we find that the Chupadera springsnail is not currently threatened by disease or predation.

Existing regulatory mechanisms are not sufficient to protect the Chupadera springsnail and prevent its extinction. New Mexico State law provides limited protection to the Chupadera springsnail. The species is listed as a New Mexico State endangered species, Group 2, which are those species “whose prospects of survival or recruitment within the state are likely to become jeopardized in the near future” (NMDGF 1988, p. 1). This designation provides protection under the New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act of 1974 ( i.e., State Endangered Species Act) (19 NMAC 33.6.8), but only prohibits direct take of species, except under issuance of a scientific collecting permit. No permit has been issued for taking this species. The New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act defines “take” or “taking” as “harass, hunt, capture, or kill any wildlife or attempt to do so” (17 NMAC 17.2.38). In other words, New Mexico State status as an endangered species only conveys protection from collection or intentional harm to the animals themselves but does not provide habitat protection. Because most of the threats to the Chupadera springsnail are from effects to habitat, in order to protect individuals and ensure their long-term conservation and survival, their habitat must be protected.

We are aware of no State laws or local ordinances that would limit groundwater pumping in the subdivisions adjacent to Willow Spring. The water supply for subdivision homes comes from individual wells, and each well in the Highland Springs Ranch subdivisions may pump up to 629 cubic meters (0.51 acre feet) per year (NMOSE 2009, p. 1). Although water delivery systems are evaluated by the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer to determine if prior water rights or the welfare of the State might be impaired by groundwater pumping, the effect of individual domestic water wells only receives that evaluation if the area has been designated as a domestic well management area (Utton Transboundary Resources Center 2011, p. 3). The land being developed around Willow Spring has not been designated as such. As discussed in Factor A above, inadequate spring flow due to pumping from the groundwater aquifer by homeowners is a threat to the water supply of Chupadera springsnail, and there are currently no regulatory mechanisms in place to manage groundwater withdrawal and ensure adequate spring flows.

In summary, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms poses a threat to the Chupadera springsnail. Existing Federal, State, and local laws have been inadequate to prevent ongoing loss of the limited habitat of this springsnail, and they are not expected to prevent further population declines of the species.

Other natural or manmade factors affecting the continued existence of the Chupadera springsnail include introduced species and climate change. These threats are intensified by the fact that the species' known historical range was only two small springs, and it has been extirpated from one of the known locations.

Introduced species are a serious threat to native aquatic species (Williams et al. 1989, p. 18; Lodge et al. 2000, p. 7). Because the distribution of the Chupadera springsnail is so limited, and its habitat so restricted, introduction of certain nonnative species into its habitat could be devastating. Saltcedar ( Tamarix spp.) threatens spring habitats primarily through the amount of water it consumes and from the chemical composition of the leaves that drop to the ground and into the springs. Saltcedar leaves that fall to the ground and into the water add salt to the system, as their leaves contain salt glands (DiTomaso 1998, p. 333). Additionally, dense stands of common reed ( Phragmites australis ) choke small stream channels, slowing water velocity and creating more pool-like habitat; this habitat is not suitable for Chupadera springsnail, which are found in flowing water. Finally, Russian thistle ( Salsola tragis; tumbleweed) can create problems in spring systems by being blown into the channel, slowing flow, and overloading the system with organic material (Service 2005, p. 2). The control and removal of nonnative vegetation can also impact springsnail habitats. For example, this has been identified as a factor responsible for localized extirpations of populations of the Federally endangered Pecos assiminea ( Assiminea pecos ), a springsnail in New Mexico, due to vegetation removal that resulted in soil and litter drying, thereby making the habitat unsuitable (Taylor 1987, pp. 5, 9).

Likewise, nonnative mollusks have affected the distribution and abundance of native mollusks in the United States. Of particular concern for the Chupadera springsnail is the red-rim melania ( Melanoides tuberculata ), a snail that can reach tremendous population sizes and has been found in isolated springs in the west (McDermott 2000, pp. 13-16; Ladd 2010, p. 1; U.S. Geological Survey 2010, p. 1). The red-rim melania has caused the decline and local extirpation of native snail species, and it is considered a threat to endemic aquatic snails that occupy springs and streams in the Bonneville Basin of Utah (Rader et al. 2003, p. 655). It is easily transported on gear or aquatic plants, and because it reproduces asexually (individuals can develop from unfertilized eggs), a single individual is capable of founding a new population. It has become established in isolated desert spring ecosystems such as Ash Meadows, Nevada, San Solomon Spring and Diamond Y Spring, Texas, and Cuatro Ciénegas, Mexico. In many locations, this exotic snail is so numerous that it covers the bottom of the small stream channel. If the red-rim melania were introduced into Willow Spring, it could easily outcompete and eliminate the Chupadera springsnail.

None of these nonnative species are known to occur in the habitats of the Chupadera springsnail at this time, and so potential impacts have not been realized. While any of these species, or others, could threaten the Chupadera springsnail if they were introduced to the small habitats of the species, nonnative species are not considered a current threat to the Chupadera springsnail.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007, p. 5), “[w]arming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.” The average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1,300 years (IPCC 2007, p. 5). It is very likely that over the past 50 years, cold days, cold nights, and frosts have become less frequent over most land areas, and hot days and hot nights have become more frequent (IPCC 2007, p. 8). Data suggest that heat waves are occurring more often over most land areas, and the frequency of heavy precipitation events has increased over most areas (IPCC 2007, pp. 8, 15).

The IPCC (2007, pp. 12, 13) predicts that changes in the global climate system during the 21st century will very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century. For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2 °C (0.4 °F) per decade is projected (IPCC 2007, p. 12). Afterwards, temperature projections increasingly depend on specific emission scenarios (IPCC 2007, p. 13). Various emissions scenarios suggest that by the end of the 21st century, average global temperatures are expected to increase 0.6 °C to 4.0 °C (1.1 °F to 7.2 °F) with the greatest warming expected over land (IPCC 2007, p. 15). However, the growth rate of carbon dioxide emissions continues to accelerate and is above even the most fossil fuel intensive scenario used by the IPCC (Canadell et al. 2007, p. 18866; Global Carbon Project 2008, p. 1), suggesting that the effects of climate change may be even greater than those projected by the IPCC.

In consultation with leading scientists from the Southwest, the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer prepared a report for the Governor of New Mexico (NMOSE 2006). The report made the following observations about the impact of climate change in New Mexico:

(1) Warming trends in the American Southwest exceed global averages by about 50 percent (p. 5);

(2) Models suggest that even moderate increases in precipitation would not offset the negative impacts to the water supply caused by increased temperature (p. 5);

(3) Temperature increases in the Southwest are predicted to continue to be greater than the global average (p. 5); and

(4) The intensity, frequency, and duration of drought may increase (p. 7).

One of the primary effects of climate change on the Chupadera springsnail is likely to be associated with groundwater availability that supports the spring flows in its habitat. There is high confidence that many semiarid areas like the western United States will suffer a decrease in water resources due to climate change (Kundzewicz et al. 2007, p. 175). Consistent with the outlook presented for New Mexico, Hoerling (2007, p. 35) states that, relative to 1990-2005, modeling indicates that a 25 percent decline in stream flow will occur from 2006 to 2030 and a 45 percent decline will occur from 2035 to 2060 in the Southwest. Milly et al. (2005, p. 349) project a 10-30 percent decrease in runoff in mid-latitude western North America by the year 2050 based on an ensemble of 12 climate models. Solomon et al. (2009, p. 1707) predict precipitation amounts in the southwestern United States and northern Mexico will decrease by as much as 9 to 12 percent (measured as percentage of change in precipitation per degree of warming, relative to 1900 to 1950 as the baseline period). Christensen et al. (2007, p. 888) state, “The projection of smaller warming over the Pacific Ocean than over the continent, * * * is likely to induce a decrease in annual precipitation in the southwestern USA and northern Mexico.” In addition, Seager et al. (2007, p. 1181) show that there is a broad consensus among climate models that the Southwest will get drier in the 21st century and that the transition to a more arid climate is already under way. Only one of 19 models has a trend toward a wetter climate in the Southwest (Seager et al. 2007, p. 1181). A total of 49 projections were created using the 19 models, and all but three predicted a shift to increasing aridity (dryness) in the Southwest as early as 2021 to 2040 (Seager et al. 2007, p. 1181). These research results indicate that the Southwest can be expected to be hotter and drier in the future, likely negatively affecting the water resources, including spring ecosystems such as Willow Spring.

It is anticipated that the effects of climate change will also lead to greater human demands on scarce water sources while at the same time leading to decreasing water availability because of increased evapotranspiration (water drawn up by plants from the soil that evaporates from their leaves), reduced soil moisture, and longer, hotter summers (Archer and Predick 2008, p. 25; Karl et al. 2009, pp. 47, 52). Climate change will likely reduce groundwater recharge through reduced snowpack and perhaps through increased severity in drought (Kundzewicz et al. 2007, p. 175; Stonestrom and Harrill 2008, p. 21). There is currently no information to quantify the likely effects of climate change on the groundwater system that supports the springs where the Chupadera springsnail occurs. However, in a study of the Ogallala aquifer, a much larger aquifer east of Willow Spring, Rosenberg et al. (1999, p. 688) found that groundwater recharge will be reduced in the face of climate change in spite of increased water yields in many areas. They also found that Ogallala aquifer water levels have been directly correlated with annual precipitation over time (Rosenberg et al. 1999, p. 679) and concluded that changes in climate could profoundly affect the accessibility and reliability of water supplies from the aquifer. We anticipate that the aquifer that supplies water to Chupadera springsnail habitat may also be susceptible to climate change-induced changes in precipitation.

In summary, climate change could affect the Chupadera springsnail through the combined effects of global and regional climate change, along with the increased probability of long-term drought. However, we are not able to predict with certainty how these indirect effects of climate change will affect Chupadera springsnail habitats due to a lack of information on the groundwater system that provides water to the species' spring habitat. We conclude that climate change may be a significant stressor that indirectly exacerbates existing threats by increasing the likelihood of prolonged drought that would reduce groundwater availability and incur future habitat loss. As such, climate change, in and of itself, may affect the springsnail, but the magnitude and imminence (when the impacts occur) of the impacts remain uncertain. Climate change is not currently a threat to the Chupadera springsnail, but it has the potential to be a threat in the foreseeable future, and impacts from climate change in the future will likely exacerbate the current and ongoing threat of habitat loss caused by other factors, as discussed above.

The Chupadera springsnail is not currently threatened by other natural or man-made factors. However, any future introduction of harmful nonnative species could have severe effects on the species. In addition, the effects of climate change, while difficult to quantify at this time, are likely to exacerbate the current and ongoing threat of habitat loss caused by other factors, particularly the loss of spring flows resulting from prolonged drought.

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the Chupadera springsnail and have determined that the species warrants listing as endangered throughout its range. The loss of one of two known populations, the ongoing threat of modification of the habitat at the only known remaining site, Willow Spring, from grazing and spring modification, and the imminent threat of groundwater depletion posed by subdivision development adjacent to the spring, places this species at great risk of extinction. The small, reduced distribution of the Chupadera springsnail heightens the danger of extinction due to threats from Factors A (specifically loss of spring flow, livestock grazing, and spring modification) and D (inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms). The existing threats are exacerbated by the effects of ongoing and future climate change, primarily due to the projected increase in droughts. Because these threats are ongoing now or are imminent, and their potential impacts to the species would be catastrophic given the very limited range of the species, we find that a proposed designation of endangered, rather than threatened, is appropriate.

The Act defines an endangered species as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” In considering “significant portion of the range,” a key part of this analysis in practice is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some way. If the threats to the species are essentially uniform throughout its range, no portion is likely to warrant further consideration. Based on the threats to the Chupadera springsnail throughout its entire limited range (one spring), we find that the species is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range, based on the immediacy, severity, and scope of the threats described above. The species is proposed as endangered, rather than threatened, because the threats are occurring now or are imminent, and their potential impacts to the species would be catastrophic given the very limited range of the species, making the Chupadera springsnail at risk of extinction at the present time. Since threats extend throughout its entire range, it is unnecessary to determine if it is in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range. Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we propose listing the Chupadera springsnail as endangered throughout its range in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed species. The protection measures required of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.

The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning components of their ecosystems.

Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline shortly after a species is listed, preparation of a draft and final recovery plan, and revisions to the plan as significant new information becomes available. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to develop a recovery plan. The recovery plan identifies site-specific management actions that will achieve recovery of the species, measurable criteria that determine when a species may be downlisted or delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (comprised of species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernment organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be available from our Web site ( http://www.fws.gov/endangered ), or from our New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal agencies, States, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat restoration ( e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires cooperative conservation efforts on private and State lands.

If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of New Mexico would be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the protection and recovery of the Chupadera springsnail. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.

Although the Chupadera springsnail is only proposed for listing under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it becomes available and any information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is subsequently listed, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may adversely affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the Service. For the Chupadera springsnail, Federal agency actions that may require consultation would include any Federally funded activities in the Willow Spring watershed, groundwater source area, or directly in the spring that may affect Willow Spring or the Chupadera springsnail; for example, activities that require a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered wildlife. The prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import, export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.

We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving threatened or endangered wildlife species under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered species. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit must be issued for the following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities.

It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of species proposed for listing. The following activities could potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this list is not comprehensive:

(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, or transporting of the species, including import or export across State lines and international boundaries, except for properly documented antique specimens of these taxa at least 100 years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act;

(2) Introduction of nonnative species that compete with or prey upon the Chupadera springsnail, such as the introduction of competing, nonnative species to the State of New Mexico;

(3) The unauthorized release of biological control agents that attack any life stage of this species;

(4) Unauthorized modification of the springs; and

(5) Unauthorized discharge of chemicals or fill material into any waters in which the Chupadera springsnail is known to occur.

Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:

(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features

(a) Essential to the conservation of the species and

(b) Which may require special management considerations or protection; and

(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.

Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.

Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner seeks or requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, the habitat within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed must contain physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species and be included only if those features may require special management considerations or protection. Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial data available, those physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food, cover, and protected habitat), focusing on the principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary constituent elements) within an area that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type). Primary constituent elements are the elements of physical and biological features that, when laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement to provide for a species' life-history processes, are essential to the conservation of the species.

Under the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species only when a designation limited to its range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. When the best available scientific data do not demonstrate that the conservation needs of the species require such additional areas, we will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species. An area currently occupied by the species but that was not occupied at the time of listing may, however, be essential to the conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat designation.

Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat.

When we determine which areas should be designated as critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information developed during the listing process for the species. Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished materials and expert opinion or personal knowledge.

We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be required for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal agencies to insure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species, and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if actions occurring in these areas may affect the species. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available information at the time of designation will not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to the species, or (2) such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.

There is no documentation that the Chupadera springsnail is threatened by collection, and it is unlikely to experience increased threats by identifying critical habitat. In the absence of a finding that the designation of critical habitat would increase threats to a species, if there are any benefits to a critical habitat designation, then a prudent finding is warranted. The potential benefits include: (1) Triggering consultation under section 7 of the Act in new areas for actions in which there may be a Federal nexus where it would not otherwise occur because, for example, it has become unoccupied or the occupancy is in question; (2) focusing conservation activities on the most essential features and areas; (3) providing educational benefits to State or county governments or private entities; and (4) preventing people from causing inadvertent harm to the species.

The primary regulatory effect of critical habitat is the section 7(a)(2) requirement that Federal agencies refrain from taking any action that destroys or adversely modifies critical habitat. Lands proposed for designation as critical habitat would be subject to Federal actions that trigger the section 7 consultation requirements. There may also be some educational or informational benefits to the designation of critical habitat. Educational benefits include the notification of the general public of the importance of protecting habitat.

At present, the only known extant population of the Chupadera springsnail occurs on private lands in the United States. The species currently is not known to occur on Federal lands or lands under Federal jurisdiction. However, lands proposed for designation as critical habitat, whether or not under Federal jurisdiction, may be subject to Federal actions that trigger the section 7 consultation requirement, such as the granting of Federal monies or Federal permits.

We reviewed the available information pertaining to habitat characteristics where this species is located. This and other information represent the best scientific data available and led us to conclude that the designation of critical habitat is prudent for the Chupadera springsnail because, as discussed above, there is no information to indicate that identification of critical habitat will result in increased threats to the species, and information indicates that designation of critical habitat would be beneficial to the species.

As stated above, section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the designation of critical habitat concurrently with the species' listing “to the maximum extent prudent and determinable.” Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the following situations exist:

(i) Information sufficient to perform required analyses of the impacts of the designation is lacking, or

(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat.

When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act provides for an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).

We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological needs of the species and habitat characteristics where this species is located. This and other information represent the best scientific data available, and the available information is sufficient for us to identify areas to propose as critical habitat. Therefore, we conclude that the designation of critical habitat is determinable for the Chupadera springsnail.

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. These include, but are not limited to:

(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior;

(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;

(3) Cover or shelter;

(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring; and

(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological distributions of a species.

We derived the specific physical and biological features required for Chupadera springsnail from studies of this species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described below. We have determined that Chupadera springsnail requires the following physical and biological features:

The Chupadera springsnail occurs where water emerges from the ground as a free-flowing spring and springbrook. Within the spring ecosystem, proximity to the springhead is important because of the appropriate stable water chemistry and temperature, substrate, and flow regime. The Chupadera springsnail occurs in one spring in an open foothill meadow at 1,620 m (5,315 ft) elevation. The species has been found in the springhead and springbrook. Historically, it was also found at an unnamed spring 0.5 km (0.3 mi) from this location.

Taylor (1987, p. 26) found Chupadera springsnail on pebbles and cobbles interspersed with sand, mud, and aquatic plants. Individuals were abundant in flowing water on stones, dead wood, and among vegetation on firm surfaces that had an organic film (periphyton). Chupadera springsnail was not found in the impoundment created by damming the springbrook (Taylor 1987, p. 26). From data collected in 1997 and 1998, Lang (2009, p. 1) determined the springsnails were found in water velocities that ranged from 0.01 to 0.19 m/s (0.03 to 0.6 ft/s).

Chupadera springsnail consume periphyton on submerged surfaces. Spring ecosystems occupied by Chupadera springsnail must support the periphyton upon which springsnails graze.

Substrate characteristics influence the productivity of the springsnails. Suitable substrates are typically firm, characterized by cobble, gravel, sand, woody debris, and aquatic vegetation such as watercress. Suitable substrates increase productivity by providing suitable egg-laying sites and providing food resources.

The Chupadera springsnail has a restricted geographic distribution. Endemic species whose populations exhibit a high degree of isolation are extremely susceptible to extinction from both random and nonrandom catastrophic natural or human-caused events. Therefore, it is essential to maintain the spring systems upon which the Chupadera springsnail depends. This means protection from disturbance caused by exposure to cattle grazing, water contamination, water depletion, springhead alteration, or nonnative species. The Chupadera springsnail must, at a minimum, sustain its current distribution for the one remaining population to remain viable.

As discussed above (see Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence ), introduced species are a serious threat to native aquatic species (Williams et al. 1989, p. 18; Lodge et al. 2000, p. 7). Because the distribution of the Chupadera springsnail is so limited, and its habitat so restricted, introduction of certain nonnative species into its habitat could be devastating. Potentially harmful nonnative species include saltcedar, common reed, Russian thistle, and the red-rim melania.

Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to identify the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of Chupadera springsnail in areas occupied at the time of listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent elements. We consider primary constituent elements to be the elements of physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species.

Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species' life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent elements specific to Chupadera springsnail are springheads, springbrooks, seeps, ponds, and seasonally wetted meadows containing:

(1) Unpolluted spring water (free from contamination) emerging from the ground and flowing on the surface;

(2) Periphyton (an assemblage of algae, bacteria, and microbes) and decaying organic material for food;

(3) Substrates that include cobble, gravel, pebble, sand, silt, and aquatic vegetation, for egg laying, maturing, feeding, and escape from predators; and

(4) Nonnative predators and competitors either absent or present at low population levels.

When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the proposed areas contain features that are essential to the conservation of the species and may require special management considerations and protections. Threats to the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the Chupadera springsnail include loss of spring flows due to groundwater pumping and drought, inundation of springheads due to pond creation, degradation of water quality and habitat due to livestock grazing or other alteration of water chemistry, and the introduction of nonnative predators and competitors. A more complete discussion of the threats to the Chupadera springsnail and its habitats can be found in “Summary of Factors Affecting the Species” above.

As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we use the best scientific and commercial data available to designate critical habitat. We review all available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the species. As part of our review, in accordance with the Act and its implementing regulation at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we consider whether designating areas outside those currently occupied, as well as those occupied at the time of listing, are necessary to ensure the conservation of the species. We designate areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time of listing only when a designation limited to its present range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.

For the purpose of designating critical habitat for Chupadera springsnail, we define the occupied area based on the most recent surveys available, which are from 1999. There is only one area currently occupied. We then evaluated whether this area contains the primary constituent elements for the Chupadera springsnail and whether they require special management. Next we considered areas historically occupied, but not currently occupied. There is only one area where the Chupadera springsnail historically occurred but is not currently occupied. We evaluated this area to determine whether it was essential for the conservation of the species.

To determine if the one currently occupied area (Willow Spring) contains the primary constituent elements, we assessed the life-history components of the Chupadera springsnail as they relate to habitat. The springsnail requires unpolluted spring water in the springheads and springbrooks; periphyton and decaying organic material for food; rock-derived substrates for egg laying, maturation, feeding, and escape from predators; and absence of nonnative predators and competitors.

To determine if the one site historically occupied by the Chupadera springsnail (unnamed spring) is essential for the conservation of the Chupadera springsnail, we considered: (1) The importance of the site to the overall status of the species to prevent extinction and contribute to future recovery of the Chupadera springsnail; (2) whether the area could be restored to contain the necessary physical and biological features to support the Chupadera springsnail; and (3) whether a population of the species could be reestablished at the site.

We plotted the known occurrences of the Chupadera springsnail in springheads and springbrooks on 2007 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Digital Ortho Quarter Quad maps using ArcMap (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.), a computer geographic information system (GIS) program. There are no known developed areas such as buildings, paved areas, and other structures that lack the biological features for the springsnail within the proposed critical habitat areas.

In summary, we propose designating critical habitat in areas that we determine are occupied at the time of listing and contain sufficient primary constituent elements to support life-history functions essential to the conservation of the species and require special management, and areas outside the geographical area occupied at the time of listing that we determine are essential for the conservation of Chupadera springsnail.

We are proposing two units of critical habitat for the Chupadera springsnail. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for Chupadera springsnail. The two areas we propose as critical habitat are: (1) Willow Spring, which is currently (at the time of listing) occupied and contains the primary constituent elements; and (2) unnamed spring, which is not currently (at the time of listing) occupied but is determined to be essential for the conservation of the species. The approximate area and land ownership of each proposed critical habitat unit is shown in table 1.

We present below brief descriptions of the units and reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for Chupadera springsnail.

Unit 1 consists of approximately 0.5 ha (1.4 ac) in Socorro County, New Mexico. When last visited in 1999, the proposed Willow Spring Unit was a wet meadow with a springbrook that runs approximately 38 m (125 ft) before being impounded by a berm that crosses the meadow. The entire unit is in private ownership. We are proposing to designate a single critical habitat unit that encompasses Willow Spring and includes the springhead, springbrook, small seeps and ponds, and the seasonally wetted meadow associated with the spring downstream to the artificial berm. This spring is located within the drainage of the Rio Grande, approximately 2.7 km (1.7 mi) west of Interstate Highway 25.

The Willow Spring site has documented occupancy of Chupadera springsnail from 1979 to 1999 (Taylor 1987 p. 24; NMDGF 2004, p. 45). The current status of the population is unknown, but absent information that indicates otherwise, we assume it persists at Willow Spring. The proposed Willow Spring Unit contains all the primary constituent elements to support all of the Chupadera springsnail life processes. Threats to the primary constituent elements in this unit that may require special management include the effects of cattle grazing, groundwater depletion, springhead or springbrook manipulation, water contamination, and potential competition from nonnative species.

Unit 2 consists of approximately 0.20 ha (0.5 ac) in Socorro County, New Mexico. The entire unit is privately owned. We are proposing to designate a single critical habitat unit that encompasses the unnamed spring and includes the springhead, springbrook, small seeps and ponds, and the seasonally wetted meadow associated with the spring. This spring is located within the drainage of the Rio Grande, approximately 2.7 km (1.7 mi) west of Interstate Highway 25, about 0.5 km (0.3 mi) north of Willow Spring.

The proposed Unnamed Spring Unit is currently unoccupied by the Chupadera springsnail, but it was historically occupied (Taylor 1987, p. 24; Lang 1998, p. 36). The spring appears to share a common aquifer and similarities in water chemistry, temperature, and hydrology with Willow Spring. The Unnamed Spring Unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it is a site where Chupadera springsnail can be reintroduced. This area is important to prevent extinction of the Chupadera springsnail. When developing conservation strategies for species whose life histories are characterized by short generation time, small body size, high rates of population increase, and high habitat specificity, it is important to maintain multiple populations as opposed to protecting a single population (Murphy et al. 1990, pp. 41-51). Having replicate populations is a recognized conservation strategy to protect species from extinction due to catastrophic events (Soule 1985, p. 731). Some habitat restoration work may be needed before Chupadera springsnail could be reintroduced to the Unnamed Spring Unit; however, creating a second population is important for the long-term persistence of the species. Therefore, we conclude this spring is essential to the conservation of the species.

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.

Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have invalidated our regulatory definition of “destruction or adverse modification” (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when analyzing whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Under the statutory provisions of the Act, we determine destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role for the species.

If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the section 7 consultation process are actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. ) or a permit from the Service under section 10 of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not Federally funded or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.

As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:

(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; or

(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, or are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.

When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. We define “reasonable and prudent alternatives” (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified during consultation that:

(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action;

(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction;

(3) Are economically and technologically feasible; and

(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.

Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly variable.

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.

The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical and biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the conservation value of critical habitat for Chupadera springsnail. As discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to support life-history needs of the species and provide for the conservation of the species.

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such designation.

Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in consultation for the Chupadera springsnail. These activities include, but are not limited to:

(1) Actions that would reduce the quantity of water flow within the spring systems proposed as critical habitat.

(2) Actions that would modify the springheads within the spring systems proposed as critical habitat.

(3) Actions that would degrade water quality within the spring systems proposed for designation as critical habitat.

(4) Actions that would reduce the availability of coarse, firm aquatic substrates within the spring systems that are proposed as critical habitat.

(5) Actions that would reduce the occurrence of native aquatic algae, and/or periphyton within the spring systems proposed as critical habitat.

(6) Actions that would introduce, promote, or maintain nonnative predators and competitors within the spring systems proposed as critical habitat.

The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) required each military installation that includes land and water suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to complete an integrated natural resource management plan by November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources found on the base.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: “The Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.”

There are no Department of Defense lands within the proposed critical habitat designation, and therefore there are no exemptions under section 4(a)(3) of the Act.

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the best available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give to any factor.

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we identify the benefits of including the area in the designation, identify the benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. If the analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may exercise his discretion to exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the extinction of the species.

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to consider economic impacts, we are preparing an analysis of the economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and related factors. Potential land use sectors that may be affected by Chupadera springsnail critical habitat designation include grazing, groundwater withdrawals, and subdivision development. We also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the designation.

We will announce the availability of the draft economic analysis as soon as it is completed, at which time we will seek public review and comment. At that time, copies of the draft economic analysis will be available for downloading from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, or by contacting the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). During the development of a final designation, we will consider economic impacts, public comments, and other new information, and areas may be excluded from the final critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense (DOD) where a national security impact might exist. In preparing this proposal, we have determined that the lands within the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Chupadera springsnail are not owned or managed by the DOD, and therefore, anticipate no impact to national security. There are no areas proposed for exclusion based on impacts on national security.

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national security. We consider a number of factors including whether the landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at any Tribal issues, and consider the government-to-government relationship of the United States with Tribal entities. We also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the designation.

In preparing this proposal, we have determined that there are currently no HCPs or other management plans for the Chupadera springsnail, and the proposed designation does not include any Tribal lands or trust resources. We anticipate no impact to Tribal lands, partnerships, or HCPs from this proposed critical habitat designation. There are no areas proposed for exclusion from this proposed designation based on other relevant impacts.

In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our critical habitat designation is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We have invited these peer reviewers to comment during this public comment period on our specific assumptions and conclusions in this proposed designation of critical habitat.

We will consider all comments and information received during this comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a final determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this proposal.

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal Register . Such requests must be sent to the address shown in the ADDRESSES section. We will schedule public hearings on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the hearing.

Persons needing reasonable accommodations to attend and participate in a public hearing should contact the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office at 505-346- 2525, as soon as possible. To allow sufficient time to process requests, please call no later than one week before the hearing date. Information regarding this proposed rule is available in alternative formats upon request.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is not significant and has not reviewed this proposed rule under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review). OMB bases its determination upon the following four criteria:

(1) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.

(2) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal agencies' actions.

(3) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients.

(4) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 (5 U.S.C 801 et seq. ), whenever an agency must publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

At this time, we lack the available economic information necessary to provide an adequate factual basis for the required RFA finding. Therefore, we defer the RFA finding until completion of the draft economic analysis prepared under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and Executive Order 12866. This draft economic analysis will provide the required factual basis for the RFA finding. Upon completion of the draft economic analysis, we will announce availability of the draft economic analysis of the proposed designation in the Federal Register and reopen the public comment period for the proposed designation. We will include with this announcement, as appropriate, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis or a certification that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities accompanied by the factual basis for that determination. On the basis of the development of our proposal, we have identified certain sectors and activities that may potentially be affected by a designation of critical habitat for the Chupadera springsnail. These sectors include grazing, groundwater withdrawals, and subdivision development. We recognize that not all of these sectors may qualify as small business entities. We have concluded that deferring the RFA finding until completion of the draft economic analysis is necessary to meet the purposes and requirements of the RFA. Deferring the RFA finding in this manner will ensure that we make a sufficiently informed determination based on adequate economic information and provide the necessary opportunity for public comment.

Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the Chupadera springsnail is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, and we do not expect it to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required. We will further evaluate energy-related issues as we conduct our economic analysis, and review and revise this assessment as warranted.

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ), we make the following findings:

(1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both “Federal intergovernmental mandates” and “Federal private sector mandates.” These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). “Federal intergovernmental mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments” with two exceptions. It excludes “a condition of Federal assistance.” It also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding,” and the State, local, or Tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. “Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.”

The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above onto State governments.

(2) We do not expect this rule to significantly or uniquely affect small governments because the proposed designation is on private land. Small governments will be affected only to the extent that any programs having Federal funds, permits, or other authorized activities must ensure that their actions will not adversely affect the critical habitat. Therefore, we do not believe a Small Government Agency Plan is required. However, we will further evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and review and revise this assessment as warranted.

In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we will analyze the potential takings implications of designating critical habitat for the Chupadera springsnail in a takings implications assessment. The takings implications assessment will determine whether this designation of critical habitat for the Chupadera springsnail poses significant takings implications for lands within or affected by the proposed revised designation. We will further evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic analysis.

In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and coordinated development of, this proposed critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource agencies in New Mexico. The designation of critical habitat on lands currently occupied by the Chupadera springsnail imposes no additional restrictions to those currently in place and, therefore, has little incremental impact on State and local governments and their activities. The designation may have some benefit to these governments because the areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the primary constituent elements of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the species are specifically identified. This information does not alter where and what Federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist local governments in long-range planning (rather than having them wait for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).

Where State and local governments require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.

In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This proposed rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies the elements of physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the Chupadera springsnail within the designated areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species.

This rule does not contain any new collections of information that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) in connection with designating critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ( Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). However, when the range of the species includes States within the Tenth circuit, such as that of the Chupadera springsnail, under the Tenth Circuit ruling in Catron County Board of Commissioners v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 75 F.3d 1429 (10th Cir. 1996), we will undertake a NEPA analysis for critical habitat designation. We will prepare an environmental assessment for the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Chupadera springsnail and notify the public of the availability of the draft environmental assessment.

We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:

(1) Be logically organized;

(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;

(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;

(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and

(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to Tribes.

We determined that there are no Tribal lands that were occupied by the Chupadera springsnail at the time of listing that contain the features essential for conservation of the species, and no Tribal lands unoccupied by the Chupadera springsnail that are essential for the conservation of the species. Therefore, we are not proposing to designate critical habitat for the Chupadera springsnail on Tribal lands.

In developing this rule we did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554).

A complete list of all references cited in this rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or upon request from the Field Supervisor, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).

The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposed critical habitat for the nine Bexar County invertebrates that was published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2011 (76 FR 9872), our DEA of the proposed designation, and the amended required determinations provided in this document. We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We are particularly interested in comments concerning:

(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), including whether there are threats to the species from human activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether that increase in threats outweighs the benefit of designation such that the designation of critical habitat may not be prudent.

(2) Specific information on:

(a) The distribution of the nine Bexar County invertebrates;

(b) The amount and distribution of any of the nine Bexar County invertebrates' habitat;

(c) What areas occupied by the species at the time of listing that contain features essential for the conservation of the species we should include in the designation and why;

(d) Special management considerations or protections that the features essential to the conservation of the nine Bexar County invertebrates identified in this proposal may require, including managing for the potential effects of climate change;

(e) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential for the conservation of the species and why;

(f) Site-specific information on subsurface geologic barriers to movement of the species or lack thereof; and

(g) The taxonomy and status of the ground beetle previously identified as Rhadine exilis in Black Cat Cave (proposed Unit 13) and the value of the cave and unit for conservation of the species.

(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.

(4) Any reasonably foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts that may result from designating any area that may be included in the final designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts on small entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas from the proposed designation that are subject to these impacts.

(5) Information on whether the benefit of an exclusion of any particular area outweighs the benefit of inclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in particular for those management plans covering specified lands used as mitigation under the La Cantera Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and lands on which impacts to the species have been authorized under that HCP. Copies of the La Cantera HCP are available from the Austin Ecological Services Field Office ( see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

(6) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of climate change on any of the nine Bexar County invertebrates and the critical habitat areas we are proposing.

(7) Information related to our 90-day finding we made in the February 22, 2011, Federal Register proposed rule (76 FR 9872) on the July 8, 2010, petition to remove critical habitat Unit 13 from designation.

(8) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concerns and comments.

(9) Information on the extent to which the description of economic impacts in the DEA is reasonable and accurate.

(10) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation of critical habitat, as discussed in the DEA, and how the consequences of such reactions, if likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation.

If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (76 FR 9872) during the initial comment period from February 22, 2011, to April 25, 2011, please do not resubmit them. We will incorporate them into the public record as part of this comment period, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our final determination concerning revised critical habitat will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive during both comment periods. On the basis of public comments, we may, during the development of our final determination, find that areas proposed are not essential, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion.

You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule or DEA by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not consider comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in the ADDRESSES section.

If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov as well. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule and DEA, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2010-0091, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). You may obtain copies of the proposed rule and the DEA on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R2-ES-2010-0091, or by mail from the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).

It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat for the nine Bexar County invertebrates in this document. For more information on previous Federal actions concerning the invertebrates, refer to the proposed critical habitat rule published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2011 (76 FR 9872). For more information on the nine Bexar County invertebrates or their habitat, refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal Register on December 30, 1998 (63 FR 71855), which is available online at http://www.regulations.gov or from the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

On February 22, 2011, we published a proposed critical habitat rule for the nine Bexar County invertebrates (76 FR 9872). We proposed to designate as critical habitat approximately 6,906 acres (2,795 hectares) in 35 units located in Bexar County, Texas. That proposal had a 60-day comment period, ending April 25, 2011. We will submit for publication in the Federal Register a final critical habitat designation for the nine Bexar County invertebrates on or before February 7, 2012.

Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.

When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of actions with a Federal nexus (activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies), the educational benefits of mapping areas containing essential features that aid in the recovery of the listed species, and any benefits that may result from designation due to State or Federal laws that may apply to critical habitat.

When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of partnerships; or implementation of a management plan. In the case of the Bexar County invertebrates, the benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of the presence of these species and the importance of habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for the invertebrates due to protection from adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat. In practice, situations with a Federal nexus exist primarily on Federal lands or for projects undertaken, authorized, or funded by Federal agencies.

The final decision on whether to exclude any areas will be based on the best scientific data available at the time of the final designation, including information obtained during the comment period and information about the economic impact of designation. Accordingly, we have prepared a draft economic analysis (DEA) concerning the proposed critical habitat designation, which is available for review and comment (see ADDRESSES section).

The DEA identifies and analyzes the potential economic impacts associated with the proposed critical habitat designation for the nine Bexar County invertebrates. The DEA describes the economic impacts of all potential conservation efforts for the invertebrates; some of these costs will likely be incurred regardless of whether we designate critical habitat. The economic impact of the proposed critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both “with critical habitat” and “without critical habitat.” The “without critical habitat” scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, considering protections already in place for the species ( e.g., under the Federal listing and other Federal, State, and local regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is designated. The “with critical habitat” scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for the species.

The incremental conservation efforts and associated impacts are those not expected to occur absent the designation of critical habitat for the species. In other words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the baseline costs; these are the costs we may consider in the final designation of critical habitat when evaluating the benefits of excluding particular areas under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The analysis looks retrospectively at baseline impacts incurred since the species were listed, and forecasts both baseline and incremental impacts likely to occur if we finalize the proposed critical habitat designation. For a further description of the methodology of the analysis, see chapter 2 of the DEA.

The DEA separates conservation measures into two distinct categories according to “without critical habitat” and “with critical habitat” scenarios. The “without critical habitat” scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, considering protections otherwise afforded to the nine Bexar County invertebrates ( e.g., under the Federal listing and other Federal, State, and local regulations). The “with critical habitat” scenario describes the incremental impacts specifically due to designation of critical habitat for the species. In other words, these incremental conservation measures and associated economic impacts would not occur but for the designation. Conservation measures implemented under the baseline (without critical habitat) scenario are described qualitatively within the DEA, but economic impacts associated with these measures are not quantified. Economic impacts are only quantified for conservation measures implemented specifically due to the designation of critical habitat ( i.e., incremental impacts). For a further description of the methodology of the analysis, see chapter 2 of the DEA.

The DEA provides estimated costs of the foreseeable potential economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation for the nine Bexar County invertebrates over the next 20 years, which was determined to be the appropriate period for analysis because limited planning information is available for most activities to forecast activity levels for projects beyond a 20-year timeframe. It identifies potential incremental costs as a result of the proposed critical habitat designation; these are those costs attributed to critical habitat over and above those baseline costs attributed to listing. The DEA quantifies economic impacts of nine Bexar County invertebrates conservation efforts associated with the following categories of activity:

The DEA focused on quantifying the effect of critical habitat designation on (1) Development, (2) transportation projects, (3) utility projects, and (4) species/habitat management. The DEA estimates that the present value impacts of critical habitat designation are between $1.62 million to $35.6 million ($153,000 to $3,360,000 on an annualized basis) over 20 years (2012 through 2031), assuming a seven percent discount rate.

Impacts to development activities represent approximately 92 to 99 percent (low and high end scenarios, respectively) of the overall impacts to areas proposed for designation during the first 20 years.

The present value incremental impact to transportation activities in the areas proposed for designation range from $13,400 in the low-end scenario to $2,770,000 in the high-end scenario (assuming a seven percent discount rate). These figures represent an annualized impact of approximately $1,270 to $262,000.

No incremental impacts are expected to utility project and species and habitat management. No utility projects are currently planned within the proposed critical habitat area. Based on the frequency of past consultations and technical assistance efforts on utility projects ( i.e., one to two efforts per year), however, it is likely that other projects will be proposed within critical habitat in the future. To date, however, Service review of these projects has primarily been technical assistance efforts that have determined the projects were not likely to affect the species or habitat. We therefore anticipate that any incremental impacts on unknown future utility projects would be minor administrative impacts.

As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule and our amended required determinations. We may revise the proposed rule or supporting documents to incorporate or address information we receive during the public comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of these species.

In our February 22, 2011, proposed rule (76 FR 9872), we indicated that we would defer our determination of compliance with several statutes and executive orders until the information concerning potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on landowners and stakeholders became available in the DEA. We have now made use of the DEA data to make these determinations. In this document, we affirm the information in our proposed rule concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 12630 (Takings), E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), E.O. 13211 (Energy, Supply, Distribution, and Use), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ), the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), and the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951). However, based on the DEA data, we are amending our required determination concerning the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ).

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 802(2)), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on our DEA of the proposed designation, we provide our analysis for determining whether the proposed rule would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on comments we receive, we may revise this determination as part of our final rulemaking.

According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term “significant economic impact” is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.

To determine if the proposed designation of critical habitat for the nine Bexar County invertebrates would affect a substantial number of small entities, we considered the number of small entities potentially affected within particular types of economic activities, such as residential and commercial development. In order to determine whether it is appropriate for our agency to certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we considered each industry or category individually. In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation will not affect activities that do not have any Federal involvement; designation of critical habitat affects only activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. In areas where one or more of the nine Bexar County invertebrates are present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the species. When we finalize this proposed critical habitat designation, consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process.

In the DEA, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small entities resulting from implementation of conservation actions related to the proposed designation of critical habitat for the nine Bexar County invertebrates. We estimate 20 to 218 small developers may be affected by the proposed rule annually, and annualized per entity impacts range from $6,400 to $8,660. This compares to average annual sales of small developers of $6.36 million. So while there may be a substantial number of developers affected, on average, the annualized incremental impact per small developer represents only from 0.10 to 0.14 percent of small developers' average annual sales. We do not believe this will have a significant impact to this small business sector. Please refer to the DEA of the proposed critical habitat designation for a more detailed discussion of potential economic impacts.

In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Information for this analysis was gathered from the Small Business Administration, stakeholders, and the Service. For the above reasons and based on currently available information, we certify that, if promulgated, the proposed critical habitat designation would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

The primary authors of this notice are staff members of the Austin Ecological Services Field Office, Southwest Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

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

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.

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 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.

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).

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 “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.

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 evidence to suggest that either species may have suffered any decline in numbers or distribution.

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.

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.

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 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).

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 °C” (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 °F (19 °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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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).

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 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.

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 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 (MgCl 2 ), 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 MgCl 2 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).

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 MgCl 2, 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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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).

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.

The petition identifies two threat factors under Factor E: (1) Small population size and vulnerability to stochastic events, and (2) global climate change.

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).

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.

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).

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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 ).

The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES ).

The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ).

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), requires that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or commercial information that listing the species may be warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition. In this finding, we will determine that the petitioned action is: (1) Not warranted, (2) warranted, or (3) warranted, but the immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether species are endangered or threatened, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal Register .

On June 25, 2007, we received a formal petition dated June 18, 2007, from WildEarth Guardians requesting that we list the Redrock stonefly as either endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated under the Act. This species was part of a petition to list 475 species in the southwestern United States. WildEarth Guardians incorporated all analyses, references, and documentation provided by NatureServe in its online database at http://www.natureserve.org into the petition. This included information produced by the Natural Heritage Network, particularly the Heritage Data Management System compiled by the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) (AGFD 2004, pp. 1-3).

Relative to the Redrock stonefly, the petition provided information on the species' current distribution, indicating it was limited to Oak Creek, Yavapai County, Arizona. The remaining information was general in nature describing factors that influence the entire stonefly order. The petition clearly identified itself as a petition and included the identification information required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). We sent a letter to the petitioners dated July 11, 2007, acknowledging receipt of the petition and stating that the petition was under review. The 90-day finding was published in the Federal Register on December 16, 2009 (74 FR 66866). This notice constitutes the 12-month finding on the June 18, 2007, petition to list the Redrock stonefly as endangered or threatened.

The Redrock stonefly is an aquatic insect in the Family Perlidae and the Order Plecoptera. Immature stoneflies, or nymphs, are aquatic and generally live in cold-water streams. The nymphs have external gills, which may be present on almost any part of the body. Nymphs appear very similar to adults but lack wings (Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 218). Most stonefly nymphs are herbivorous, feeding on submerged leaves and algae, but other stonefly species are predaceous and feed on other aquatic macroinvertebrates (Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 217). Stoneflies remain in nymph form for 1 to 3 years, depending on species, before emerging and becoming terrestrial adults (Bouchard 2004, p. 77). Adult stoneflies generally only survive for a few weeks, and emerge only during specific times of the year. Some adult stoneflies do not feed at all, but those that do are herbivorous.

The family Perlidae includes relatively large, predaceous stoneflies. They have external gills found on three thoracic (middle body) segments (Bouchard 2004, p. 85). The Anacroneuria genus is the largest genus in the Perlidae family, primarily occurring in the Neotropical regions of Central and South America (Jewitt 1958, p. 159; Bispo and Froehlich 2004, p. 191). There are 231 described and 19 undescribed species within this genus occurring from the southernmost United States to South America (DeWalt et al. 2010, p. 1). The genus Anacroneuria expanded northward into Central America, Texas, and Arizona about 4 million years ago after the formation of the Isthmus of Panama, during the Pliocene Period (Fochetti and Tierno de Figueroa 2008, p. 374).

Anacroneuria was confirmed to exist in the United States when Redrock stonefly was described from Yavapai County, Arizona (Baumann and Olson 1984, pp. 489-492). Anacroneuria nymphs (immature stages) were first collected in Oak Creek at Page Springs in 1975, and the first adults were collected from Oak Creek at Redrock Crossing in 1978 (Baumann and Olson 1984, p. 489).

The Redrock stonefly is a large-winged stonefly. Adult male body lengths range between 0.4 to 0.5 inches (in) (10 to 12 millimeters (mm)), and female body lengths are 0.6 in (15 mm). Overall coloration is the same between genders: yellow head, brown and yellow body with bands bordering the midline. Redrock stonefly legs are covered with small brown spines on the upper surface, and the abdomen has many small spinules on the edges (Baumann and Olson 1984, pp. 489-492). Stewart and Harper (1996, pp. 231, 255, 258) provide morphological characters to separate Anacroneuria adults and nymphs from other Perlidae genera. Anacroneuria adults and nymphs are distinguished from all other southwestern Perlidae for having two ocelli (simple eyes) on top of their head rather than three. The only other western Perlidae genus with two ocelli is Neoperla, but it is not found in Arizona (Stewart and Stark 2002, p. 350).

Baumann and Olson (1984, pp. 489-492) is the only published paper describing the Redrock stonefly. This paper does not provide any specific habitat or ecology information on this species. However, the following ecological information is available from published reports on other Anacroneuria species. We presume that the information generally applies to Redrock stonefly.

At early ages and small sizes, Anacroneuria nymphs are primarily detrivorous, meaning they feed on decayed leaves, algae, and other organic matter. Older larger nymphs are predaceous, feeding entirely on other aquatic insects including Dipteran (true fly) larvae and Ephemeropteran (mayfly) nymphs, and other smaller stonefly nymphs. North American Perlidae stonefly nymphs, in addition to foraging in riffle (shallow, flowing water) habitats, often forage within leaf packs (Femenella and Stewart 1986, pp. 535-536). Neotropical Anacroneuria nymphs forage in leaf litter as predators (Baptista et al. 2001, p. 251; Wantzen and Wagner 2006, p. 220); we assume that leaf litter provides an important foraging habitat for Redrock stonefly nymphs. Leaf litter availability varies in southwestern U.S. streams (Schade and Fisher 1997, p. 612). Leaf litter can accumulate behind large rocks, behind logs, along the stream margins where the current is slower, and behind other obstructions in high-gradient streams (Hoover et al. 2006, pp. 443-444). Intense local thunderstorms generate severe flash floods, which may reduce leaf litter availability for that season (Schade and Fisher 1997, pp. 612, 624). Predaceous stoneflies, including the Redrock stonefly, must then be able to forage in riffle areas outside of leaf litter when it is not available in their habitat. Adult Anacroneuria do not eat; they apparently rely on the predaceous diet of their late nymphal stages for reproductive organ and egg development (Fenoglio 2003, pp. 2, 16).

Neotropical Anacroneuria have a multivoltine life cycle (more than one life cycle, from egg to adult, occurs during a year) (Jackson and Sweeney 1995, p. 122). Because multivoltine life cycles are unknown in stoneflies from temperate climates (United States and Canada) (Brittain 1990, p. 4), we anticipate that the Redrock stonefly would have a univoltine life cycle (only one life cycle from egg to adult per year).

Stoneflies use egg or nymphal diapause (a period of suspended growth or development) during harsh summer conditions to allow them to survive seasonally poor water conditions and low stream flows (Snellen and Stewart 1979, p. 663; Brittain 1990, p. 8; Favret and DeWalt 2002, p. 37). During summer diapause, stonefly eggs or nymphs suspend development and remain buried in the moist stream bottom sediment until optimal growth conditions return. Stoneflies, including Perlidae, also use this summer diapause to survive in intermittent streams (streams that only flow as a response to snowmelt or rain storm runoff and have insufficient groundwater contribution to provide surface flow during the summer) (Snellen and Stewart 1979, p. 1; Feminella 1996, p. 659; Miller and Golladay 1996, p. 685). The Redrock stonefly may be expected to use diapauses during dry periods when water conditions and quantity are low.

Aquatic macroinvertebrates drift, or move downstream in their habitats, under different circumstances. Catastrophic drift occurs when large flood events carry macroinvertebrates downstream (Brittain and Eikland 1988, pp. 82-83). All aquatic macroinvertebrates are likely to experience this drift event if they are unable to find suitable protection during a flood event. This may also include drift from substrate disturbance from other means such as hikers, livestock, or vehicles moving across the stream. Aquatic macroinvertebrates may behaviorally drift to colonize new habitats to reduce competition for food and space (Brittain and Eikland 1988, p. 84). Predator-induced drift may occur when they are disturbed by a foraging predator and escape by allowing the water current to carry them away (Malmqvist and Sjostrom 1987, p. 402). Intentional drifting, as in behaviorally or predator-induced cases, is only practiced by those macroinvertebrates that are capable swimmers (such as Baetid and Amelitid mayflies) and can control when, where, and how far they drift (Malmqvist and Sjostrom 1987, p. 402). Drifting insects are very susceptible to fish predation; they are out in the open water column where they are easily seen. Intentional drift often occurs at night to avoid fish predation (Flecker 1992, p. 438). Aquatic macroinvertebrates that are poor swimmers, such as predaceous stoneflies, are less likely to purposely drift because they would be susceptible to fish predation (Radar and McArthur 1995, p. 8). However, in some cases, predaceous stoneflies may drift when suitable foraging sites are separated by areas, such as sand-bottom streams, with little hiding cover to crawl across. Large crawling stoneflies, like the Redrock stonefly, are also susceptible to fish predation where there is little cover. In contrast, areas of continuous cover, such as cobble-bed streams, provide protection from fish predation when stoneflies move from one area to another (Radar and McArthur 1995, p. 1). The known Redrock stonefly sites are continuous cobble-bedded streams, which reduces the need to drift to new areas.

The Redrock stonefly is known to only occur in Arizona, and it was initially described from specimens collected at two sites: Redrock Crossing at Red Rock State Park and Page Springs on Oak Creek, Yavapai County, Arizona (Baumann and Olson 1984, p. 492; AGFD 2004, p. 1). Additional stonefly surveys were conducted to determine the Redrock stonefly's current status and distribution (Service 2010a, p. 1). During surveys in May and June 2010, adult Redrock stoneflies were found at the Page Spring Fish Hatchery on Oak Creek and Wet Beaver Creek, and near an Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) Bear Flats sampling site on Tonto Creek (Service 2010, p. 1). Surveys on West Clear Creek, east of Camp Verde in Yavapai County, did not identify any Redrock stoneflies. Identification of adult specimens was confirmed by stonefly experts (Kondratieff pers. comm. 2010, p. 1; Baumann pers. comm. 2010, p. 1; Stark pers. comm. 2010, p. 1).

The ADEQ had previously collected Anacroneuria nymphs during water quality monitoring on Campbell Blue Creek in Apache County in 2000; four sites on Upper Tonto Creek in Gila County from 1995 to 2008; Spring Creek in Gila County in 1998; and Wet Beaver Creek (upstream of the Service's survey location) in 1995 (Spindler 2010a, p. 1). Species identification was not possible because only Anacroneuria nymphs were collected. However, because there are no other stonefly species in that genus known from Arizona, we presume these nymphs represent collections of Redrock stonefly.

In total, we now believe the Redrock stonefly occupies at least 10 sites within five different streams in central Arizona. As a result the only known change in distribution of the species is the increase from 2 sites, from which it was initially described, to 10 sites where additional surveys found it. The increased range is a result of increased survey efforts. We suspect that if additional survey efforts were employed for this species, its known range and number of occurrences would likely expand as well. This is because the adult flying form of the Redrock stonefly has the ability to easily disperse into available habitats, and there are numerous other habitats in this region of Arizona that would appear suitable to support Redrock stoneflies. The species does not appear to be a habitat specialist, and so we would expect to find it in other similar stream habitats if more survey efforts were undertaken.

The current sites where the Redrock stonefly occurs span about 180 miles (mi) (288 kilometers (km)) east to west across the Central Highlands Physiographic Region in Arizona and include the Verde and Salt Rivers and Tonto Creek headwaters. Because of the high elevations and associated higher rainfall and snowfall, these watersheds contain the highest concentration of perennial streams (water present throughout the year) in Arizona (Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) 2009a, p. 4). The Redrock stonefly may also occupy other un-surveyed water bodies (for example, East Verde River, Dude and Canyon Creeks, and numerous sites on the White Mountain Apache Indian Reservation) located in this physiographic region. The Redrock stonefly sites or their watersheds are found on the Coconino, Tonto, and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Descriptions of occupied areas on each National Forest are provided below.

To date, the Redrock stonefly has been found only in perennial streams. All sites are in moderate gradient (approximately 2 percent slope), cobble-bedded streams, with overhanging streambank vegetation including willow ( Salix sp. ), velvet ash ( Fraxinus velutina ), Arizona alder ( Alnus oblongifolia ), and blackberry ( Rubus sp. ) (Service 2010a, p. 1).

There is substantial variation in the stream size, elevation, and water temperature in areas occupied by the Redrock stonefly, making this species more of a generalist than most other stonefly species (Brittain 1990, p. 2). Stream sizes range from Campbell Blue Creek (47 square-mi (122 square-km) watershed and 160 cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) (4.5 cubic-meters-per-second (cms)) bankfull channel discharge) to Oak Creek at Page Springs (355 square-mi (919 square-km) watershed and 1,400 cfs (39.6 cms) bankfull channel discharge). Bankfull channel discharge relates to the relative frequent flow (occurs 2 out of every 3 years) that fills the river channel to the point of inundating the floodplain (Rosgen 1996, p. 2-2). Elevations at Redrock stonefly sites range from 3,460 feet (ft) (1,055 meters (m)) on Oak Creek below Page Springs to 6,670 ft (2,033 m) on Campbell Blue Creek. Adjacent upland vegetation ranges from mixed paloverde and cactus desert (Oak Creek at Page Springs) to ponderosa pine ( Pinus ponderosa ) and mixed conifer (Campbell Blue Creek). The majority of sites are located between 3,900 and 5,100 ft (1,190 and 1,555 m) in elevation. Seven of the 10 Redrock stonefly sites are considered warm-water streams (streams located below 5,000 ft (1,524 m) elevation): Oak Creek (two sites), Wet Beaver Creek (two sites), Spring Creek, and the two lower Tonto Creek sites (Spindler 2010c, p. 1). The remaining three sites (streams above 5,000 ft (1,524 m)), Campbell Blue Creek and the two higher Tonto Creek sites, are considered cold-water streams.

Oak Creek is a perennial stream in Coconino and Yavapai Counties in central Arizona. Average annual precipitation in Oak Creek Canyon is 28 in (71 cm) (ADWR 2009a, p. 247). Its two main tributaries are the West Fork of Oak Creek and Pumphouse Wash on the Coconino National Forest. Oak Creek base flow is maintained by springs at Indian Gardens, by Page Springs, and from its Spring Creek tributary. Oak Creek, upstream and downstream of the Redrock stonefly sites, flows through Coconino National Forest, private lands, and State-owned lands. Redrock Crossing, the farthest upstream Redrock stonefly site in Redrock State Park, is located approximately 4.7 river miles (7.6 km) downstream from the city of Sedona. The Page Spring site, at the Page Springs Fish Hatchery which is owned and operated by the AGFD, is approximately 18.7 river miles (30 km) downstream of Sedona.

Wet Beaver Creek is located east of Interstate Highway 17 and north of the city of Camp Verde in Yavapai County, Arizona. It is a tributary to Beaver Creek, which eventually flows into the Verde River at Camp Verde. The Redrock stonefly was collected at two sites on Wet Beaver Creek. The ADEQ collected nymphs upstream of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream gage and adults were also collected at the Beaver Creek Ranch (Service 10a, p. 1). Both sites are located on the National Forest; the downstream site is adjacent to private land.

Tonto Creek originates on the edge of the Mogollon Rim at about 7,600 ft (2,300 m) in elevation in mixed conifer forest, dominated by ponderosa pine. Average annual precipitation for the Upper Tonto Creek watershed ranges from 22 to 30 in (56 to 76 cm) (ADWR 2009a, p. 173). There are 10 different springs that produce more than 10 gallons per minute (gpm) (38 liters per minute (lpm)) that contribute to Tonto Creek (ADWR 2009a, p. 182). Tonto Spring at the headwaters of Tonto Creek is the largest spring in the Tonto Creek Basin with a measured discharge of 1,291 gpm (4,887 lpm) (ADWR 2009a, p. 180).

The ADEQ collected Redrock stonefly nymphs at four sites on Tonto Creek: above Bear Flats; below the Christopher Creek confluence; below the Haigler Creek confluence; and below Bear Flats, south of Kohls Ranch (Spindler 2010a, p. 1). Two adult female Redrock stoneflies were also collected at the Bear Flats Campground in June 2010. All Redrock stonefly sites on Tonto Creek are on the Tonto National Forest. This portion of Tonto Creek is predominantly U.S. Forest Service land, with the exception of a private development at Bear Flats and Kohl's Ranch. The Redrock stonefly sites downstream of Bear Flats and downstream of the Haigler Creek confluence are located within the Hells Gate Wilderness and managed by the U.S. Forest Service.

Spring Creek is located on the Tonto National Forest near the town of Young, Gila County, Arizona. The Redrock stonefly site on Spring Creek is downstream of the Brady Canyon confluence and has an 88 square-mi (228 square-km) watershed. Spring Creek eventually flows 11 mi (17.6 km) from this site into Tonto Creek. Annual precipitation averages 24 in (61 cm) (ADWR 2009b, p. 173). Spring Creek is an interrupted flow system with perennial water disappearing in wider alluvial valleys (gently sloping areas with deep sediment deposits) then resurfacing in narrow canyons. It is mapped as an intermittent stream below its confluence with Walnut Creek (ADWR 2009a, p. 182, Figure 5.3-6). There are no springs along Spring Creek or located within its watershed that produce stream flows greater than 1 gpm (3.8 lpm) (ADWR 2009b, p. 182). ADWR (2009, p. 187) does not record any wells located within the Spring Creek watershed.

Campbell Blue Creek originates southwest of Alpine, Apache County, in eastern Arizona, and flows southeasterly for 17 river miles (27 km) to its confluence with Dry Blue Creek in New Mexico. Perennial flow initiates downstream of the Coleman Creek/Campbell Blue Creek confluence. Campbell Blue Creek has one spring that produces at least 10 gpm (38 L pm), located downstream of the Redrock stonefly site (ADWR 2009b, pp. 351-352). All of the tributaries that drain into Campbell Blue Creek are intermittent (ADWR 2009b, p. 352). The area receives an average of 21 inches (53 cm) of precipitation per year (ADWR 2009b, p. 342).

Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered (in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range) or threatened (likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of it range) based on any of the following five factors:

(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;

(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

(C) Disease or predation;

(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or

(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

In making this finding, information pertaining to the Redrock stonefly in relation to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below. In making our 12-month finding, we considered and evaluated the best available scientific and commercial information.

In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant a threat it is. If the threat is significant, it may drive or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species such that the species warrants listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are defined by the Act. This does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere identification of factors that could impact a species negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that listing is appropriate; we require evidence that these factors are operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species meets the definition of endangered or threatened under the Act.

Under Factor A, we will discuss a variety of potential impacts to Redrock stonefly habitat including: (1) Water quality, (2) livestock grazing, (3) crayfish, (4) wildfires, (5) prescribed fires, (6) recreation, and (7) urban and rural development. The potential impacts of nonnative crayfish are discussed here related to habitat alterations, and other impacts from crayfish are discussed under Factor C below.

Impacts to aquatic habitats, especially from pollution, have been identified as a concern for the Redrock stonefly (AGFD 2004, p. 2). Most stonefly species are restricted to cold-water environments because their small external gills require water with high dissolved oxygen levels (Surdick and Gaufin 1978, p. 3; Covich 1988, p. 365; Brittain 1990, p. 2). In unpolluted, cold-water streams and rivers, dissolved oxygen concentrations usually remain high, well above 80 percent saturation, because oxygen solubility (ability to be absorbed in water) increases as temperature decreases (Hauer and Hill 1996, p. 96). High organic nutrient levels can also be detrimental because they cause excessive microbial (microscopic organisms) growth. These organisms consume oxygen from the water (Hauer and Hill 1996, pp. 96-97). Organic pollution can also cause excessive algae growth, which can decrease dissolved oxygen when the algae respires or absorbs oxygen at night (Hauer and Hill 1996, p. 97) or when the vegetation dies and decomposes (Jewell 1971, p. 1457). Because Plecoptera are considered sensitive to low dissolved oxygen levels in water, their presence is often used for monitoring water quality (Surdick and Gaufin 1978, p. 1; Udo et al. 1984, p. 189). However, stoneflies in the genus Anacroneuria are an exception to this standard practice, because species in this genus are well-established in warm-water neotropic regions of Central and South America and can withstand lower dissolved oxygen levels (Stark and Kondratieff 2004, p. 1; Fenoglio 2007, p. 220; Nelson 2008, p. 184; Springer 2008, p. 274). Anacroneuria are often found in streams with warm-water temperatures ranging from 75 to 78 degrees Fahrenheit (24 to 26 degrees Celsius) (Froehlich and Oliveira 1997, p. 1882; Fenoglio and Rosciszewska 2003, p. 163), which limits available dissolved oxygen. Anacroneuria are adapted to low dissolved oxygen levels by having egg capsules with tiny, thin canals oriented perpendicularly to the surface of the shell that enhance oxygen uptake compared to other stoneflies (Fenoglio and Rosciszewska 2003, p. 163). As a result of these adaptations, the Redrock stonefly may be tolerant of impaired water quality, particularly elevated water temperature and excessive nutrients that can lead to low dissolved oxygen.

Several researchers have reported that Anacroneuria are tolerant of poor water quality conditions. In fact, due to its tolerance for low dissolved oxygen and poor water quality, Tomanova and Tedesco (2007, p. 69) determined that Anacroneuria may not be a good indicator of water quality. Baptista et al. (2007, p. 92) noted that in tropical streams, Anacroneuria was an exception to the rule that Plecoptera are considered sensitive to environmental degradation. In addition, Anacroneuria were documented in numerous bioassessment reviews and studies in South America in waters with high organic (nutrients) levels, although less so than in unpolluted waters (Froelich and Oliveria 1997, p. 183; Bispo et al. 2002, p. 413; Bispo and Oliveria 2007, p. 287). Bobot and Hamada (2002, p. 300) found that Anacroneuria densities did not respond to suspended sediment caused by deforestation in streams in central Brazil. In another study, Anacroneuria were the only stoneflies found in streams under strong anthropogenic (human-caused) influences (Bispo et al. 2002, p. 413). We presume that the Redrock stonefly is similar to other species of stoneflies in the Anacroneuria genus and would, therefore, be tolerant of poor quality conditions, should these types of conditions be present in their habitat.

The ADEQ is required by the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. ) to conduct a comprehensive analysis of water quality data associated with Arizona's surface waters to determine whether State water quality standards are being met and designated uses (such as human contact, aquatic, and wildlife) are being supported. Since 1992, the ADEQ has evaluated water quality at eight sites currently known to be occupied by Redrock stonefly nymphs (Spindler 2010b, p. 1). The ADEQ rated five of the eight sites, Oak Creek (two sites) and Tonto Creek (three sites), as having impaired water quality as a result of Escherichia coli ( E. coli ) bacteria level exceedance in 2006 and 2008 (Avila et al. 2009, pp. VR-33, VR-35, SR-64, SR-65). The ADEQ notes that high E.coli levels, on their own, do not affect aquatic invertebrates (Spindler 2010b, p. 1), and we do not expect them to affect Redrock stoneflies. This parameter is measured for safety thresholds for the human contact designated use (Marsh 2009, p. G-22). The ADEQ found no other water quality concerns during these surveys. Our review found no other information indicating water quality concerns in the streams where Redrock stoneflies are known to occur.

Based on the results of ADEQ water quality analyses and the Redrock stonefly's wide range of habitats and presumed tolerance to higher levels of sedimentation and nutrient enrichment, we conclude that water quality conditions in Arizona are not a significant threat to the Redrock stonefly or its habitat.

If livestock grazing is not well-managed, aquatic insects can be negatively impacted by decreased riparian vegetation, stream bank destabilization, and increases in sedimentation and water temperature (Braccia and Voshell 2006, p. 269; McIver and McInnis 2007, p. 294). Improper grazing use levels may lead to soil erosion from riparian and upland vegetation removal, soil litter removal, increased soil compaction from trampling, and increased bare ground (Kauffman and Krueger 1984, p. 434; Schulz and Leininger 1990, pp. 297-298; Belsky et al. 1999, p. 30). Excessive livestock grazing in upland watersheds can also lead to bare, compacted soils, which in turn allow less water infiltration, which generates increased rates of surface runoff and can contribute to soil erosion as well as flooding and stream bank alterations (Abdel-Magid et al. 1987, pp. 304-305; Orodho et al. 1990, pp. 9-11). Increased soil erosion leads to higher sediment loads in nearby waters, which can degrade instream and riparian habitat and increase water turbidity. Perlidae stoneflies, like Redrock stoneflies, may experience reduced respiratory ability when their gills are covered by sediment (Lemly 1982, pp. 238-239). Sediment that becomes embedded in the interstitial spaces around large substrate can smother insect (such as stonefly) eggs and larvae, reduce forage for the nymphal stage, and limit suitable egg depositing sites (Brusven and Prather 1974, p. 31; Waters 1995, pp. 65-66).

The ADEQ (Spindler 2010c, p. 1) classified the Redrock stonefly sites as moderate gradient based on riffle-dominated cobble or gravel or both substrate streams (Rosgen Stream Classification B3 channel types) (Rosgen 1994, p. 174; Rosgen 1996, pp. 5-68, 5-72). The B3 stream types are moderately entrenched systems with channel gradients of 2 to 4 percent. The channel bottom materials are composed primarily of cobble (2.5 to 10 in (64 to 256 mm) intermediate axis diameter) with a few boulders and lesser amounts of sands and gravels. Rosgen (1994, p. 194) determined that B3 stream types have low sensitivity to disturbance and low streambank erosion potential. The large cobble substrate that is resistant to movement during frequent flood events is also resilient to livestock disturbance. Given the energy required to initiate movement of large cobbles, these stream channel types do not rely on vegetation for stability; the substrate size in itself provides stabilization.

Recent ADEQ water quality data do not show that livestock are having a negative impact on water condition at any of the Redrock stonefly sites, in the form of excess sediment or nutrients that are contributing to impairment (Avila et al. 2009, pp. SR-64, SR-65, VR-33, VR-35, VR-61, VR-62). The ADEQ sites that are impaired and the causes of impairment are discussed above in the Water Quality section.

One reason that grazing is not affecting streams that provide habitat for the Redrock stonefly is that many of the streams are in areas with well-managed grazing or no grazing. In Coconino National Forest, the Oak Creek sites are not on livestock grazing allotments. Almost the entire Oak Creek corridor is excluded from livestock grazing. The Wet Beaver Creek stonefly sites are also excluded from livestock grazing. In the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, Campbell Blue Creek is also excluded from livestock grazing within the downstream segment where Redrock stoneflies were collected by ADEQ (USDA 2009, p. 87).

In the Tonto National Forest, the five Upper Tonto Creek sites are located on two livestock grazing allotments: Christopher Mountain/Ellinwood and Diamond Butte. The Redrock stonefly sites in the Christopher and Tonto Creeks are excluded from grazing due to their topography (they are in very steep terrain), or they are located in pastures that are not grazed. The Spring Creek site is not located on a grazing allotment, but is used for the Heber-Reno Sheep Driveway on the Tonto and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Two permitted livestock operators are authorized to use the driveway as part of their 10-year grazing permits. The permitted sheep herding is currently managed through Annual Operating Instructions that are prepared for the Long Tom and Beehive/Sheep Springs allotments in coordination with the livestock operators and six ranger districts on the two forests. The Sheep Driveway is used to access summer grazing allotments on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest from winter grazing lands located on private property in Phoenix, Arizona. Approximately 8,000 permitted sheep, plus 7 pack animals per band for the sheep herders and camp tender, are authorized on the Sheep Driveway (USDA 2010a, pp. 1-2). Sheep are kept out of all riparian areas except when crossing and watering (USDA 2010a, p. 11). All riparian areas are excluded from use as bedding grounds. The limited sheep grazing at established stream channel crossings does not likely affect the Redrock stonefly. These stream crossing sites have little to no riparian vegetation and no potential to produce riparian vegetation because they are dry washes or road surfaces, or they consist of large cobble and boulder substrate (USDA 2010a, p. 3).

Livestock grazing is not threatening the habitat of the Redrock stonefly, because the habitat has limited exposure to the effects of grazing. Livestock are excluded from the Oak, Wet Beaver, and Campbell Blue Creeks Redrock stonefly sites due to decisions of land managers or property owners. The Tonto Creek Redrock stonefly sites are located in areas difficult for livestock to access. Only one area is used as a travel corridor for moving sheep (Spring Creek), and the stream crossing sites are not likely to affect Redrock stoneflies. Therefore, we find that grazing is not a significant threat to the Redrock stonefly or its habitat.

Crayfish are not native to Arizona. The red swamp crayfish ( Procambarus clarkii ) and the green or northern crayfish ( Orconectes virilis ) were introduced in Arizona in the 1970s (Taylor et al. 1996, p. 27; Inman et al. 1998, p. 3). The red swamp crayfish is not currently found in any of the Redrock stonefly sites (Sorensen 2010, p. 1; USGS 2010a, p. 1). The northern crayfish, however, is found throughout Arizona, including the following Redrock stonefly sites: Tonto Creek drainage; Oak Creek drainage (Holycross et al. 2006, pp. 23, 40-44, 59); Verde River drainage (Inman et al. 1998, Appendix B; Holycross et al. 2006, pp. 14, 20-28, 54-56); Salt River drainage (Inman et al. 1998, Appendix B; Holycross et al. 2006, pp. 15, 29-44, 56-60); and Spring Creek drainage and Campbell Blue Creek drainage (Holycross et al. 2006, pp. 25, 46, 55, 60).

Crayfish are known to affect aquatic macroinvertebrate habitat in three ways: (1) By increasing leaf litter decomposition rates; (2) by feeding on aquatic plants; and (3) by increasing turbidity and sedimentation from bioturbation when crayfish are physically moving through fine substrates. The following discussion addresses each of these three mechanisms. Crayfish can also prey on macroinvertebrates, and this is discussed under Factor C.

First, crayfish may reduce the amount of leaf litter in streams and reduce the amount of forage and foraging habitat available to Redrock stonefly nymphs. The nymphs feed on detritus when young; they then prey upon other aquatic macroinvertebrates found in the leaf litter (Fenoglio 2003, pp. 2, 16). Forested streams receive a large portion of their energy input from allochthonous litter (mainly plant material from terrestrial sources) (Minshall 1967, p. 147; Vannote et al. 1980, p. 132; Wallace et al. 1997, p. 102). This litter, in the form of leaves and wood, is an important food source and foraging area for stream invertebrates (Wallace and Webster 1996, p. 120; Usio 2000, p. 608). Invertebrates that feed on leaf litter are called shredders and consume course particulate organic matter in the stream channel. Shredders convert coarse particulate organic matter into fine particulate organic matter, which breaks down litter and provides additional food sources for stream macroinvertebrates. In their native range, crayfish serve an important function by shredding coarse particulate organic matter into fine matter in litter-based food webs (Usio 2000, p. 612; Creed and Reed 2004, p. 225).

However, nonnative crayfish feeding on leaf litter can significantly reduce the time it would otherwise take to break down leaf litter and may lower the amount of foraging area available to native macroinvertebrates (Usio 2000, p. 612; Creed and Reed 2004, p. 231; Bobeldyk and Lamberti 2010, pp. 648, 652). Nonnative crayfish are typically the largest invertebrate shredder in streams (Usio 2000, p. 609; Parkyn et al. 2001, p. 641). Studies show that reduced terrestrial litter amounts in streams resulted in decreased abundance of invertebrates (and their predators) that feed on large and fine particulate organic matter (Wallace et al. 1997, p. 102; Bobeldyk and Lamberti 2010, pp. 649, 652). Neotropical Anacroneuria nymphs feed on the small invertebrates that occur in association with leaf litter and leaf packs (accumulated piles of leaf litter) (Benstead 1996, p. 371; Mathuriau and Chauvet 2002, p. 390; Wantzen and Wagner 2006, p. 220). Redrock stonefly nymphs are expected to use leaf packs as foraging habitat when leaf packs are available and have not been removed from the site by flooding (Schade and Fisher 1997, p. 624). Redrock stonefly nymphs could have less available food and foraging habitat as a result of nonnative crayfish feeding on the leaf litter and increasing the rate of leaf breakdown. However, because leaf litter availability is also affected by flood events, the Redrock stonefly would be expected to be adaptable and to satisfy its foraging needs in other habitats such as riffle areas. Therefore, the potential loss of some leaf litter due to crayfish is not expected to impact Redrock stoneflies.

Second, crayfish may reduce the amount of living aquatic vegetation in streams. Crayfish feed heavily on living aquatic plants (Chambers et al. 1990, p. 90; Creed 1994, p. 2098; Nystrom and Strand 1996, pp. 678, 680). The northern crayfish feeds on and reduces aquatic vegetation available in streams, removing food sources for herbaceous invertebrates, which reduces macroinvertebrate habitat, and may cause a decrease in available prey items as food for the Redrock stonefly. In one example, Creed (1994, p. 2098) found that a filamentous alga ( Cladophora glomerata ), an aquatic plant commonly fed upon by crayfish, was at least 10-fold greater in aquatic habitats without crayfish in Michigan streams. Filamentous alga is an important component of aquatic vegetation that provides cover and food for macroinvertebrates that predatory stoneflies may feed on.

However, we believe that crayfish feeding on aquatic plants is not likely to impact the Redrock stonefly. This is because Redrock stonefly nymphs occur in moderately steep-gradient streams with cobble substrates that do not provide many areas with fine substrates or low water velocities for herbaceous vegetation to establish and persist. The three factors that limit aquatic vegetation growth in stream channels are shade, large cobble substrate, and high water velocity, and they are all present at all Redrock stonefly sites (Vannote et al. 1990, p. 132; Biggs 1996, p. 135; Riis and Biggs 2003, pp. 1495-1496; O'Hare et al. 2010, pp. 6-7; Service 2010a, p. 1). We presume that Redrock stoneflies, like most Anacroneuria, feed in leaf litter and gravel and cobble substrates rather than in aquatic vegetation (Tamaris-Turizo 2007, p. 1). Therefore, crayfish herbivory does not significantly impact stonefly foraging habitat or prey availability.

Third, crayfish can increase turbidity (suspended sediment in the water column) in wetlands and lakes as they move and forage for prey in fine sediments (Statzner et al. 2000, p. 1039; Dorn and Wojdak 2004, p. 157). Many aquatic invertebrates depend upon open interstitial spaces (small openings between rocks) in channel substrate (gravels and cobbles). Excessive sediments in streams can fill the interstitial spaces and reduce aquatic invertebrate habitat (Waters 1995, pp. 65-68). Crayfish bioturbation (the mobilizing of sediments by crayfish activity) can impact lakes, ponds, and wetlands, but it is not likely to significantly affect high-gradient streams, such as the sites where Redrock stoneflies are present, because the small amounts of suspended sediment would be carried by stream flow through the water column until they are deposited downstream at lower gradient and lower velocity sites.

In some situations, crayfish bioturbation may actually improve macroinvertebrate habitat in the stream environment by removing fine sediments from interstitial spaces. For example, Statzner et al. (2000, p. 1039) observed that crayfish bioturbation removed fine sediments and benefited gravel-spawning salmonids. Also, Creed and Reed (2004, p. 234) found that mayfly (Ephemeroptera) numbers increased when crayfish bioturbation removed fine sediments from gravel streambeds in Maryland. This may be particularly important for the recovery of stream bottom habitats after silt deposition following floods or other upstream disturbances (Parkyn et al. 1997, p. 689). The Redrock stonefly sites are stable stream channels that are moderately steep and dominated by cobbles. These sites usually have little soft or fine sediments to be disturbed and enter the water column. Therefore, crayfish bioturbation is not likely to impact Redrock stoneflies.

In summary, we considered three mechanisms by which nonnative crayfish could alter the habitat of the Redrock stonefly: (1) Increasing leaf litter decomposition rates; (2) feeding on aquatic plants; and (3) increasing turbidity and sedimentation from bioturbation when crayfish are physically moving through fine substrates. Our analysis of the biology of the stonefly and known ecology of the crayfish finds that crayfish are not likely a significant threat to the Redrock stonefly or its habitat.

Wildfires, through alterations of the terrestrial environment, can cause many physical disturbances to streams (Gresswell 1999, p. 194). Low-intensity fire, which is cooler burning and does not result in major changes in the vegetation community in which it occurs, has been a natural disturbance factor in forested landscapes for centuries, and low-intensity fires were common in Southwestern forests and grasslands prior to European settlement (Harrington and Sackett 1990, p. 122). Fire suppression and wildfire control during the past decades have changed this natural fire regime, resulting in unnatural fuel build-up by increased understory vegetation and stand density of large trees, which increases fire severity (Harrington and Sackett 1990, p. 122; Schoennagel et al. 2004, p. 661; Westerling et al. 2006, p. 940). This increased wildfire severity can result in large increases in the magnitude and frequency of floods resulting from vegetation removal by fire that did not likely occur prior to wildfire suppression and control efforts (Neary et al. 2003, p. 30). Moody and Martin (2001, p. 2990) and Viera et al. (2004, p. 1254) each noted increased soil erodibility and reduced infiltration after severe fires, which resulted in dramatic increases in peak flow and sediment load in streams draining burned catchments. In Southwestern montane watersheds, flood events may occur during the July-August monsoon period immediately following the May-June fire season (Rinne 1996, p. 653).

Wildfires have occurred in the past within watersheds that contain the Redrock stonefly sites (for example, the Picture Fire above Spring Creek, the Brady Fire above Wet Beaver Creek, and the Brins Fire and Division Fire above Oak Creek). The Brady Fire burned approximately 4,000 acres (ac) (1,620 hectares (ha)) in the upper Wet Beaver Creek watershed in 2009 (U.S. Forest Service 2010b, p. 1). Two USGS stream gages are near the Oak Creek and Wet Beaver Creek Redrock stonefly sites. Wet Beaver Creek stream flow data do not show that there has been a significantly higher peak flow event after the fire. The nearest Oak Creek stream gage, immediately upstream of Page Springs, began functioning in October 1981. The Division Fire burned approximately 650 ac (260 ha) on the slopes above Oak Creek at Page Springs in August 1980, and the Brins Fire burned 4,317 ac (1,744 ha) north of Sedona in June 2006 (U.S. Forest Service 2010b, p. 1). The USGS stream flow data do not show any significantly higher peak flows after the two fires (USGS 2010).

The direct effects of fire on stream macroinvertebrate communities generally are minor or indiscernible (Rinne 1996, p. 655; Minshall et al. 1997, p. 2519; Minshall 2003, p. 155). However, important exceptions may include intense heating in areas of small water volume (for example, small first- or second-order streams or shallow, sluggish margins of larger streams) and extended exposure to toxins from dense smoke and errant retardant drops (Minshall 2003, p. 156). Redrock stoneflies may only experience limited exposure to these effects in the swifter flowing water they inhabit. Toxins and heated water may be transported through their habitat before cumulative adverse effects result.

Instead, adverse effects of wildfire on stream macroinvertebrates are largely the result of physical changes in habitat due to increased runoff after the fire (Minshall et al. 1989, p. 712). This higher runoff can scour, transport, and redistribute sediments and organic matter, and it can restructure the physical stream environment (Herbst and Cooper 2010, p. 1355). Aquatic macroinvertebrates are somewhat resilient to flood events. High numbers may be removed after floods, but their numbers quickly recover (Molles 1985, p. 281; Hering et al. 2004, p. 454). However, aquatic macroinvertebrates showed low resistance and resilience to the effects of repeated, large, post-fire flood events (Viera et al. 2004, p. 1253). Macroinvertebrate taxa richness and densities in general were reduced after the first large post-fire flood events, then recovered until the next large flood event (Viera et al. 2004, pp. 1247-1248). In one example, a 3-year study from central Arizona, Rinne (1996, p. 655) found large flood events reduced macroinvertebrate densities by 85 to 90 percent after the Dude Fire.

Primary consumers, organisms that feed on plants, such as blackfly and midge larvae (Diptera), and Baetid mayflies, quickly recolonized and dominated the community after wildfire (Minshall et al. 1997, p. 2523; Viera et al. 2004, p. 1255). Many of these primary consumers are filter feeders, which are able to take advantage of increased organic matter entering the stream after a fire (Minshall et al. 1989, p. 713; Herbst and Cooper 2010, p. 1363). They also disperse easily from upstream areas through drift (Minshall et al. 1997, p. 2523) or from adult dispersal from adjacent undisturbed habitats (Hughes et al. 2003, p. 2151). Because of the increased availability of prey species (primary consumers), large stonefly nymphs and other predatory macroinvertebrates can dramatically increase in abundance after a fire (Viera et al. 2004, pp. 1253-1254; Herbst and Cooper 2010, p. 1360; Malison and Baxter 2010, p. 1335). For example, Viera et al. (2004, p. 1251) found the predaceous stonefly, Isoperla (Perlodidae), had recovered in the first post-fire year that did not experience a significant flood event. We would, therefore, anticipate that under most circumstances, if fires resulted in a decrease in the availability of primary consumer prey species for food of Redrock stoneflies, such an effect would be short-term in nature.

Because of the limited exposure of the species to the effects of wildfires and the expected resiliency of the species to recover following any short-term habitat alteration resulting from wildfires, we find the wildfires are not a significant threat to the Redrock stonefly or its habitat.

To avoid the detrimental effects of large, high-severity fires and to restore more natural fire disturbance patterns in forest ecosystems of the western United States, prescribed fires and mechanical forest thinnings (selected removal of trees) are being used as management tools, particularly near wildland-urban interfaces (Arkle and Pilliod 2010, p. 893). Prescribed fires are often intentionally excluded from, or near, riparian forests to avoid fire-associated increases in sediment levels and other habitat changes that could be detrimental to ecologically sensitive habitats and aquatic taxa (Arkle and Pillirod 2010, pp. 893-894). Therefore, prescribed fires in Arizona are usually designed to avoid impacting riparian and stream habitats. For example, the U.S. Forest Service has formally consulted with the Service under section 7 of the Act on two prescribed fires that they determined would have an adverse effect on two listed species, Gila topminnow ( Poeciliopsis occidentalis ) and loach minnow ( Tiaroga cobitis ), in a riparian or stream community in Arizona: the Quien Sabe Fire Management Treatment (Service 1991, pp. 8-9) and the Robinson Mesa Prescribed Fire Project (Service 1999, pp. 22-23). Both consultations included mandatory terms and conditions to reduce the adverse effects of project implementation to listed species. We anticipate that the exclusion of prescribed fire from riparian areas, along with conservation measures put in place during prescribed fire planning for other species, is adequate to minimize impacts to the Redrock stonefly. The Redrock stonefly's resilience to wildfire, discussed above, would also reduce the effects of prescribed fire. Therefore, we find that prescribed fires are not a significant threat to the Redrock stonefly or its habitat.

The Redrock stonefly sites or their watersheds occur on private, State, and Federal lands. The Federal lands are managed for recreation and other purposes, and some level of recreation occurs on every stream occupied by the Redrock stonefly. A study of outdoor recreation trends in the United States found increases in participation in most of the activities surveyed, which included bicycling, primitive or developed-area camping, bird watching, hiking, backpacking, and snowmobiling (Cordell et al. 1999, pp. 221-321). Human population growth trends are expected to continue into the future throughout the Southwest, leading to higher demand for outdoor recreational opportunities. In the arid Southwest, the human desire to recreate in or near water, and the relative scarcity of such recreational opportunities, tends to focus recreation impacts on riparian areas (Winter 1993, p. 155; Briggs 1996, p. 36).

Streams are popular hiking destinations in Arizona. While there are hiking opportunities at each of the Redrock stonefly sites, actual use is limited by their location in remote rugged canyons with poor access or due to land ownership restrictions (State and private lands). Spring Creek and the three lower Tonto Creek sites are located in areas without easy road access. The upper Tonto Creek site is difficult to access because of private land downstream of its location. The Campbell Blue Creek site is located along a forest road, leading to a private ranch in a remote area in eastern Arizona. The Redrock stonefly is not affected by hiking in Oak Creek. The Page Springs Oak Creek site, at the Page Springs Hatchery, has hiking trails on the adjacent uplands. The AGFD allows very limited creek access from their property, due to concerns of fish disease transmission from the creek to the hatchery. Redrock State Park only allows visitor access along designated trails; swimming or wading is prohibited in Oak Creek. The Beaver Creek Ranch is a private high school that limits public access to the east side of the creek. Recreational use is primarily hiking through the area along the west side of the creek.

Hiking in streams can be a source of disturbance to stream invertebrates. Aquatic invertebrates can be induced to drift as a result of disturbance by hikers within the stream. In one study, increased numbers of hikers resulted in increased densities of drifting aquatic invertebrates (Caires et al. 2010, p. 555). However, this is not likely to be a significant effect, because aquatic invertebrates are adapted to flash floods, which cause a similar, but larger, disturbance (Caires et al. 2010, p. 555). Caires et al. (2010, p. 555) found that aquatic invertebrates areas disturbed by hikers quickly recolonized from upstream. Redrock stoneflies do not intentionally drift, but if hiking causes then to enter the water column, they would be susceptible to fish predation until they settled back down to the stream bed. Future flood events could carry Redrock stoneflies downstream to unoccupied habitats. Because of the limited opportunity for hikers in streams occupied by the Redrock stonefly and the likely, but short-term, effects of hiking, this type of recreational activity is not a significant threat to the Redrock stonefly or its habitat.

Off-road vehicle (ORV) use is another form of recreation that can increase sedimentation in streams by damaging riparian vegetation and stream banks. However, most Redrock stonefly sites are either inaccessible or minimally impacted by ORV use. The Oak Creek sites are not accessible to ORV use. The Page Springs site, at the Page Springs Fish Hatchery, limits visitors to walking trails on both sides of Oak Creek, fish hatchery tours, and fishing. Also, ORV use is prohibited at the Redrock Crossing site at Red State Park. The Wet Beaver Creek sites are inaccessible to ORVs because the U.S. Forest Service road leading to the site upstream of the USGS gage is closed to all vehicular traffic. The lower Wet Beaver Creek site, near the Beaver Creek Ranch, is protected by private land on the east side and the closed U.S. Forest Service road on the west side. Similarly, the three Tonto Creek sites are either located in a narrow canyon or have private land at Bear Flats that blocks access. The lower site is located in the Hells Gate Wilderness, where mechanized and motorized vehicle uses are prohibited. The Spring Creek site is located in a steep-walled canyon without any road access. The Campbell Blue Creek site is the only habitat that may experience some ORV use because there is a road paralleling the creek that provides vehicle access into the area. Therefore, due to the lack of access to all but one of the known occupied sites, we do not consider ORV use a threat to the Redrock stonefly or its habitat.

In summary, we considered the potential impacts to Redrock stonefly habitat from recreational activities primarily associated with hiking and ORV use. We found there is limited access to Redrock stonefly habitats for these activities and very minor effects when they occur. Therefore, we find that recreation is not a significant threat to the Redrock stonefly or its habitat.

The effects of urban and rural development on natural habitats are expected to increase as human populations increase. Consumer interest in second home and retirement real estate investments has increased significantly in recent times within the southwestern United States. Medina (1990, p. 351) points out that many real estate investors are looking for scenic areas with mild climates to develop properties that are within, or adjacent to, riparian areas, due to their aesthetic appeal and available water, especially in the southwestern United States. Arizona's population increased by 28 percent from 2000 to 2009 (U.S. Census Bureau 2010, p. 1). Over the same time period, population increases in the Arizona counties where Redrock stoneflies occur are as follows: Yavapai County (28 percent); Gila County (1.8 percent); and Apache County (1.8 percent) (U.S. Census Bureau 2010, p. 1).

Increased urbanization and population growth results in increased demands for water development projects. Collier et al. (1996, p. 16) mentions that water development projects are one of two main causes of decline of native fish in the Salt and Gila Rivers of Arizona, and municipal water use in central Arizona increased by 39 percent over 8 years (American Rivers 2006, p. 1). Water for development and urbanization is often supplied by groundwater pumping and surface water diversions from sources that include reservoirs and the Central Arizona Project's allocations from the Colorado River. The hydrologic connection between groundwater and surface flow of intermittent and perennial streams is becoming better understood as a result of new research. Groundwater pumping creates a cone of depression within the affected aquifer that slowly extends outward from the well site. When the cone of depression intersects the hyporheic zone of a stream (the transition zone between surface water and groundwater), the surface water flow may decrease, and the subsequent drying of riparian and wetland vegetative communities may result (Webb and Leake 2006, p. 308).

Streamflow reduction from increased groundwater use and surface water diversion can have a dramatic impact on stream habitat and associated macroinvertebrate communities. Artificial flow reductions frequently lead to negative changes in aquatic ecosystems, such as decreased water depth, increased sedimentation, and altered water temperatures and chemistry; all of these can reduce or influence macroinvertebrate numbers, richness, competition, predation, and other interactions (Dewson et al. 2007, pp. 401-411). Twenter and Metzger (1963, p. 29) determined that permeable sandstone beds are the primary source of water for springs in the Page Springs (also referred to as Cave Springs) and Spring Creek areas, and much of the perennial flow in Oak Creek is from these springs. Twenter and Metzger (1963, p. 14) determined that the average base flow of Oak Creek just above the springs complex during winter months was 40 cfs (1.13 cms). After adding the 36 cfs (1.01 cms) inflow from springs and 16 cfs (0.45 cms) from Spring Creek, the base flow increased to 92 cfs (2.6 cms) near the mouth of the creek. There are six springs, not including Page Springs, immediately upstream of the Page Springs Redrock stonefly site that produces more than 10 gpm (37.8 lpm) (ADWR 2009a, p. 268). Page Springs is the second highest discharging spring in the Verde River watershed, flowing at 29 cfs (0.82 cms) (Flora 2004, p. 38). These springs and seeps in the Page Springs area provide a large volume of water to Oak Creek, where the Redrock stonefly occurs (Mitchell 2001, p. 4). An analysis of the Page Springs flow rate between January 1, 1996, and February 9, 2000, detected a 15 percent decline in flow (Mitchell 2001, p. 5). This analysis period coincided with a severe to extreme drought, and with the drilling of three new wells upstream of Page Springs (Mitchell 2001, p. 6). The ADWR's records show that three wells have been drilled in close proximity and up gradient of Cave Springs (Mitchell 2001, p. 6). Two of these wells pump between 1,200 gpm (4,542 lpm) and 1,500 gpm (5,678 lpm), and are within 0.75 mi (1.2 km) of Page Springs. Given their proximity, production rate, and hydrological connectivity, groundwater withdrawal by these wells could have a direct impact on flow at Page Springs (Mitchell 2001, p. 6). However, the extent of the impact of these wells on the spring cannot be determined without long-term aquifer tests and simultaneous discharge monitoring at Cave Springs (Mitchell 2001, p. 6).

Wet Beaver Creek, upstream of the USGS stream gage, is not affected by diversions or wells, because the watershed above this site is on the Coconino National Forest. The Beaver Creek Ranch, adjacent to the lower Wet Beaver Creek site, has a small pond that is filled by a diversion from the creek. This pond is not large enough to impact Wet Beaver Creek base flow (Hedwall 2011, p. 1).

The Upper Tonto Creek headwaters are fed by numerous springs, the largest of which is Tonto Springs. Long-term flow records from Tonto Springs show little fluctuation in baseflow over a 20-year period (Parker et al. 2005, p. 73). There are numerous small wells located on private lands and at U.S. Forest Service campgrounds upstream of the Redrock stonefly site. The ADWR (2009a, p. 187) does not monitor water depth in these wells, nor address the wells' impact to Tonto Creek baseflow.

The Redrock stonefly site on Spring Creek is not affected by groundwater wells as ADWR does not identify any wells in the vicinity (2009a, p. 197). The Campbell Blue Creek Redrock stonefly site is located in an undeveloped watershed with only two small parcels of private land upstream of two ADWR-registered wells at the Blue River Ranch. There are no other ADWR-registered wells on Campbell Blue Creek (ADWR 2010, p. 1). There will likely be continued human population growth in the foreseeable future in some areas around Redrock stonefly habitats that could result in increased groundwater usage. However, we do not have sufficient information to reasonably determine whether any future groundwater would result in declines to stream flows in Redrock stonefly habitats. Overall, because of the low level of water development currently occurring within the watersheds that support the species, water development associated with urban and rural development does not appear to threaten the Redrock stonefly or its habitat.

Overall, our review found that the best available scientific and commercial information indicates that the Redrock stonefly is not threatened by the destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range either now or in the foreseeable future. The Redrock stonefly spends most of its life in a nymph stage in gravel and cobble substrates of perennial streams. Therefore, water quality and streamflow are important habitat factors in assessing the status of the species. In considering potential threats due to the degradation of water quality, we first found that the Redrock stonefly, unlike other species of stoneflies, is not known to be particularly sensitive to changes in water quality. This is due to anatomical adaptations of the genus that allow it to persist in warmer water with lower oxygen levels compared to other stoneflies. Because of these adaptations, any potential changes in water quality are likely to have minimal impacts to the Redrock stonefly. In addition, studies by the State of Arizona, ADEQ, at eight sites near Redrock stonefly habitat found no water quality problems that would be a concern for the stonefly. We also considered the potential impacts to water quality, particularly increased sedimentation, from livestock grazing in watersheds where the Redrock stonefly occurs. Our analysis found that grazing is not a significant source of sedimentation because most of the sites where the stoneflies occur have either adequately managing grazing programs or no grazing activity. In addition, water quality assessments by ADEQ did not indicate increased levels of sediments or other pollutants of concern.

We also considered the possible habitat concerns related to the presence of nonnative crayfish in streams inhabited by the Redrock stonefly. We found that while crayfish may increase leaf litter decomposition rates and reduce foraging habitat for Redrock stoneflies, the availability of this habitat is naturally limited by flood events. Redrock stoneflies have other foraging habitats available to them in the stream channel, such as in gravel and cobble substrates. Crayfish could also reduce foraging habitat for stoneflies by feeding on aquatic plants, if they served as stonefly feeding substrate. However, as Redrock stoneflies likely feed in leaf litter and gravel and cobble substrates (rather than on aquatic vegetation), and their streams do not contain much habitat for aquatic vegetation, this change would not impact the stoneflies. Finally, the potential for crayfish to increase turbidity of the water through foraging was not found to be a problem because the stream habitats where the stonefly occurs are high gradient with fast velocity that flushes most mobilized sediments downstream. Thus, the nature of the Redrock stonefly's feeding strategies and habitat (fast-flowing water over riffles of gravel and cobble substrates) reduces the potential impacts of nonnative crayfish.

We next considered the potential impacts from wildfires and prescribed fires to Redrock stonefly habitats. We found that the species has limited exposure to the effects of wildfires and is expected to show high resiliency to recover following any short-term habitat alteration resulting from wildfires. In addition, for prescribed fires, we anticipate that the exclusion of riparian areas, along with other conservation measures, will likely be adequate to minimize any potential impacts to the Redrock stonefly or its habitat.

We evaluated the potential impacts to Redrock stonefly habitat from recreational activities primarily associated with hiking and ORV use, because many of the streams where the species occurs are popular recreational destinations. However, we found there is limited access for these activities to the actual Redrock stonefly habitats, and very minor effects are expected when recreational activities occur near Redrock stonefly habitat. This limits the likelihood of any potential impacts to the species associated with recreational activities. We also assessed the risk of stream flow declines as a consequence to increases in human development and associated groundwater use. While there are potential effects to stream flows in some areas, we found no indication that groundwater withdrawals either currently, or in the foreseeable future, are likely to impact Redrock stonefly habitats.

Finally, there has been no reduction in the known range of the Redrock stonefly (see discussion under Distribution section above). The only change in the distribution of Redrock stonefly is the increase in the number of known locations that resulted from a recent increase in survey efforts. Therefore, in conclusion, we find that the best scientific and commercial information available indicates that the Redrock stonefly is not now, or in the foreseeable future, threatened by the destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range to the extent that listing under the Act as an endangered or threatened species is warranted at this time.

There is no information available indicating that overutilization is a threat to Redrock stonefly. Because of limited access, collection of the species is not likely to occur with any frequency. The Redrock stonefly is currently known to occur at 10 sites. Access to three, Tonto Creek above Bear Flats, Page Springs, and Redrock Crossing, is limited by private land, State park, or State fish hatchery. The two Wet Beaver Creek sites have limited access due to closed roads and private land. The three sites on Tonto Creek, below the Bear Flat Campground and the Spring Creek site, have limited access due to rugged terrain and poor road conditions. There is no commercial or recreational use for Redrock stoneflies. Further, even though small collections for scientific and educational purposes may occasionally occur, we do not believe these collections are large enough in magnitude to constitute a threat to the species. Therefore, we conclude that the best scientific and commercial information available indicates that Redrock stonefly is not threatened now or in the foreseeable future from overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.

We have no information that disease may be a threat to Redrock stonefly. However, potential impacts from predation by native fish, nonnative fish, and nonnative crayfish are discussed below.

Native fish species, found in some or all of the Redrock stonefly sites, that may feed on Redrock stoneflies include: Roundtail chub ( Gila robusta ), Gila chub ( G. intermedia ), headwater chub ( G. nigra ), longfin dace ( Agosia chrysogaster ), speckled dace ( Rhinichthys osculus ), and Sonoran sucker ( Catostomus insignis ) (Rinne 1992, p. 39; Pilger et al. 2010, p. 307). The Oak Creek sites are also considered historical Gila trout ( Oncorhynchus gilae ) habitat (Service 2003, p. 6), and the Campbell Blue River site, although outside their historical range, may contain introduced Apache trout ( Oncorhynchus apache ) (Service 2009b, p. 12). These two trout feed upon Redrock stonefly and other aquatic insects (Behnke 1992, p. 43).

Native fish predation is not likely to negatively impact Redrock stoneflies. Aquatic macroinvertebrates, like Redrock stonefly, have adapted over time to fish predation (including small body size, cryptic coloration, and nocturnal activity) so that they are affected little by changes in fish density (Allan 1982, p. 1454). Two studies found that when fish numbers were reduced (Allan 1982, p. 1454) or increased (Culp 1986, p. 146), there were no significant effects on stoneflies and other macroinvertebrates. The stonefly, Hesperaperla (Perlidae), experienced decreased sculpin ( Cottus sp. ) predation when hiding cover was available (Brusven and Rose 1981, p. 1447). Flecker and Allan (1984, p. 311) found that fish predation had very little effect on macroinvertebrate taxa and individuals regardless of substrate size (embedded or un-embedded gravel and cobble substrate). Fish predation may be negligible if fish are feeding primarily on “surplus” secondary production of macroinvertebrates that exceeds the local carrying capacity.

The vulnerability of large predatory stonefly to fish predation is largely a function of their exposure, large size, and active foraging habits (Meissner and Muotka 2006, p. 428). However, most Perlidae stoneflies, including Anacroneuria, forage at night to avoid predators that seek prey visually (Zanetell and Peckarsky 1996, p. 574). Where focused predation on predatory stoneflies occurs, it can decrease stonefly density in two ways: Direct consumption by predatory fish, or apparent emigration to an area with fewer fish (Feltmate and Williams 1989, p. 1579). Stoneflies also modify habitat use to avoid predation by selecting larger substrate on which they are less vulnerable (Brusven and Rose 1981, p. 1447; Feltmate et al. 1986, p. 1587).

Because of the findings of past studies showing a lack of effect of predation on stoneflies and the ability of stoneflies to avoid exposure to predation, we find that predation by native fish is not a significant threat to Redrock stonefly.

Nonnative fish are found in the majority of aquatic communities in Arizona, including the Redrock stonefly sites. Holycross et al. (2006, pp. 14-15) found nonnative fish species in 64 percent of the sample sites in the Agua Fria watershed, 85 percent of the sample sites in the Verde River watershed, 75 percent of the sample sites in the Salt River watershed, and 56 percent of the sample sites in the Gila River watershed. In total, nonnative fish were observed at 41 of the 57 sites surveyed (72 percent) across the Mogollon Rim in Arizona (Holycross et al. 2006, p. 14).

Several studies have been conducted that analyzed the effects of nonnative fish predation on predaceous aquatic invertebrates like the Redrock stonefly. Pilger et al. (2010, pp. 306-307, 311, 319-321) found the nonnative brown trout ( Salmo trutta ), rainbow trout, flathead catfish ( Pylodictis olivaris ), green sunfish ( Lepomis cyanellus ), smallmouth bass ( Micropterus dolomieu ), and yellow bullhead ( Ameiurus natalis ) preyed more frequently on predaceous aquatic invertebrates than did native fish species. The study also found stonefly remains in rainbow trout and yellow bullhead stomach contents (Pilger et al. 2010, pp. 316-317). Other studies (Nystrom et al. 2003, p. 603; Meissner and Muotka 2006, pp. 428-429; Herbst et al. 2009, pp. 1336-1337) also found that trout prefer large active prey such as predatory invertebrates, which may include the Redrock stonefly. In Argentina, Molineri (2008, p. 111) found Anacroneuria densities lower in streams with introduced rainbow trout than in streams with a single native fish species. In a second study, introduced trout were also found to decrease invertebrate predaceous stonefly abundance when compared with paired fishless streams (Herbst et al. 2009, p. 1330). Herbst et al. (2009, p. 1337) also found that two of the three abundant predaceous stoneflies declined with trout introductions, whereas the third species was unaffected.

In streams where a previously nonexistent feeding guild (a group of organisms that feed on resources in similar ways) has become established by the presence of a nonnative fish, macroinvertebrate community-level effects are likely to be more detectable. For example, introduced brown trout in the Shag River, New Zealand, occupy the diurnal invertebrate drift feeder niche (species that feed on drifting macroinvertebrates during the day), which was not previously filled by native fish (Flecker and Townsend 1994, p. 805; Nystrom and McIntosh 2003, p. 280). Macroinvertebrate numbers and densities were lowest in the brown trout-occupied channels (Flecker and Townsend 1994, pp. 801-802). The effects of introduced trout on the macroinvertebrate community of previously fishless streams was also studied by Flecker (1992, p. 443), who compared differences in invertebrate drift timing between streams with an introduced drift feeder (rainbow trout) and nearby fishless streams. Where trout were introduced, invertebrate drift peaked at night, whereas the drift occurred at all times in the fishless streams. These studies indicate some potential impacts of nonnative fishes on stream invertebrates.

The studies described above involved nonnative fish that were stocked into previously fishless streams or streams with extremely low native fish diversity. None of the streams occupied by the Redrock stonefly were fishless prior to nonnative fish establishment. As a result of evolving in habitat already containing native predatory fish, the Redrock stonefly has likely developed effective anti-predator behavior (Sih et al. 2010, p. 610). Also, in North America introduced nonnative trout co-exist with, or have replaced, native trout, rather than being released into streams without trout. So the introduced trout are not a novel predatory threat that Redrock stoneflies, in Oak, Wet Beaver, and the Campbell Blue Creeks, have not experienced (Flecker and Townsend 2003, p. 805). Tonto and Spring Creeks are not considered historic native trout habitat (Service 2003, p. 4). Therefore, we conclude that the anti-predatory behaviors of Redrock stoneflies are likely sufficient to prevent nonnative trout from being a significant threat to the Redrock stonefly.

Yellow bullheads, a nonnative fish species, do represent a previously nonexistent feeding guild in Arizona. They are nocturnal tactile feeders that forage along the stream bottom (Reynolds and Casterlin 1977, p. 132). Yellow bullheads are found in Oak, Wet Beaver, Tonto, and Spring Creeks, and are likely present in the Redrock stonefly sites. However, the Redrock stonefly may have specific behaviors to avoid predation by fish. For example, Moore and Williams (1990, p. 52) found that when the stonefly Pteranarcys dorsata was touched by sculpin and suckers feeding along the stream bottom, it froze and, if attacked, feigned death by curling up and extending its cerci (paired appendages on the posterior body segment) as spines. This reduced handling success or feeding ability by fish. Otto and Sjöström (1983, p. 203) also found that the stonefly Dinocras cephalotes used this anti-predator strategy to avoid trout predation. We do not know if this anti-predator strategy is used by Redrock stoneflies to avoid yellow bullhead predation, but we expect that this or other anti-predatory behaviors likely diminish any potential threat to the species posed by yellow bullheads.

Predatory activities by introduced crayfish can affect aquatic macroinvertebrates by direct predation and increased macroinvertebrate drift as escaped prey escape and incidental dislodgment by crayfish foraging. Research indicates that crayfish are primarily carnivorous as juveniles before becoming omnivorous or even herbivorous as they mature (Bondar et al. 2005, p. 2633; Flinders and Magoulick 2007, p. 775). However, Momot (1995, pp. 34, 38) states that the crayfish's role as a predator has been greatly underestimated.

Fernandez and Rosen (1996, p. 3) studied the effects of crayfish on a low-elevation semi-desert stream and a high-mountain stream in Arizona. They concluded that crayfish predation can noticeably reduce aquatic vertebrate and macroinvertebrate species diversity and destabilize food chains in riparian and aquatic ecosystems. However, specific information on nonnative crayfish predation on macroinvertebrates, or specifically stoneflies, is less conclusive. Some studies suggest that slow-moving organisms (unlike the Redrock stonefly) kept in enclosures with crayfish (for example, leeches (Hirudinea), dragonflies (Odonata), caddisflies (Trichoptera), isopods, and mollusks) are preyed on by crayfish, whereas more mobile prey or prey living in sediments (for example, trout fry, chironomids, and stoneflies) were less affected by crayfish (Hanson et al. 1990, p. 78; Stenroth and Nystrom 2003, p. 472). For example, Fernandez and Rosen (1996, p. 10) found significantly lower macroinvertebrate numbers and biomass (primarily slow-moving caddisflies, snails, and mussels) in crayfish-occupied sites than in unoccupied sites in the White Mountains, Arizona. Crayfish reduced slow or immobile invertebrate numbers and biomass in other studies as well (Hanson et al. 1990, p. 78; Perry et al. 1997, p. 124; Stenroth and Nystrom 2003, p. 472; Olsson et al. 2009, p. 1735).

One study found a negative relationship between crayfish numbers and invertebrates, such as stoneflies, as a result of crayfish predation. Charlebois and Lamberti (1996, pp. 556, 560) found lower macroinvertebrate numbers, including Perlid stoneflies, in areas with both low and high crayfish densities in a Michigan stream. They concluded that invasive crayfish can significantly affect macroinvertebrate numbers. However, when Bobeldyk and Lamberti (2008, pp. 268-269) returned 10 years later, they found that, while macroinvertebrate numbers were still significantly higher in areas without crayfish, areas with high and intermediate crayfish densities were dominated by highly mobile stoneflies and mayflies. This later study substantiates the conclusion from studies discussed above: more mobile aquatic macroinvertebrate species, such as the Redrock stonefly, may not be significantly impacted by crayfish predation.

Crayfish predation on macroinvertebrates may be more pronounced in coldwater streams that lack crayfish predators, such as largemouth bass ( Micropterus salmoides ) and smallmouth bass (Hill and Lodge 1995, p. 310; Charlebois and Lambertii 1996, p. 560). Hill and Lodge (1994, p. 2122; 1995, p. 310) found higher macroinvertebrate numbers in enclosures that contained both bass and crayfish and attributed this to decreased crayfish feeding on vegetative cover and less foraging time in the presence of bass predation. In the cool-water streams occupied by the Redrock stonefly (the two uppermost Tonto Creek sites and the Campbell Blue Creek site), crayfish may not experience a high degree of fish predation; therefore, crayfish may not be limiting their foraging time. In contrast, green sunfish and yellow bullhead are found in the lower three Tonto Creek and Spring Creek Redrock stonefly sites. These species are crayfish predators (Pilger et al. 2010, pp. 319, 321). Wet Beaver Creek and Oak Creek contain smallmouth bass and yellow bullhead. These crayfish predators may decrease crayfish-predation on macroinvertebrates, such as the Redrock stonefly in Oak, Wet Beaver, the lower three Tonto, and Spring Creek sites.

Crayfish are tactile predators and some stonefly nymphs have evolved appropriate defenses from predation such as retreat, deflection of an attack by reflex bleeding (fluid is forcibly expelled from pores on the legs), and spacing. Sedentary prey have been found to be more vulnerable than mobile prey to tactile predators (Allan and Flecker 1988, p. 502); therefore, upon encountering a crayfish, stoneflies rapidly retreat rather than freezing to minimize the risk of being caught (Moore and Williams 1990, p. 53). Reflex bleeding or auto-hemorrhaging is known to be used by at least four Plecoptera genera in two families: Pteronarcidae ( Pteronarcys (Moore and Williams 1990, p. 50) and Peltoperla (Benfield 1974, p. 740)), and Perlidae ( Agnetina and Acroneuria (Bukantis and Peckarsky 1985, p. 202)). This is used as a defense only when retreat from the predator fails and capture occurs. Crayfish that are sprayed immediately drop the stonefly and clean their antennae and mouthparts before continuing to forage (Moore and Williams 1990, p. 50). The spacing of nymphs may also serve as a deterrent to predation. Some stonefly nymphs display aggressive behavior towards each other when they come in close contact (Moore and Williams 1990, p. 54). By avoiding close contact and high densities, Redrock stoneflies may reduce their susceptibility to predation by decreasing the time and exposure to predators (Tinbergen et al. 1967, p. 308; Moore and William 1990, p. 55).

Crayfish may also cause macroinvertebrate drift or movement within the water column indirectly by incidentally dislodging them during foraging, or directly by attempted predation (Charlebois and Lamberti 1996, p. 557). As discussed earlier, predator-induced drift is a predator-avoidance mechanism used by macroinvertebrates that swim well, whereas poor swimming invertebrates (which would include Redrock stoneflies) crawl rather than drift, when approached by predators (Malmqvist and Sjostrom 1987, p. 401; Peckarsky 1996, p. 1902). Poor swimmers would be susceptible to fish predation if crayfish were to induce their drift up into the water column, especially during the day (Flecker 1992, pp. 1-12; Radar and MacArthur 1995, pp. 7-8). Therefore, Redrock stoneflies crawl rather than drift to avoid crayfish predation, and so reduce the likelihood of predation by crayfish.

In conclusion, because of the expected limited exposure of the Redrock stoneflies to crayfish and the stonefly's ability to avoid predation, we conclude that nonnative crayfish do not threaten the Redrock stonefly.

Disease is not known to be a threat to Redrock stonefly. Native fish, nonnative fish, and nonnative crayfish are found in Redrock stonefly habitat and likely prey on all available food resources, including the Redrock stonefly. However, we have no evidence to suggest that predation has been, or will be, a threat to the Redrock stonefly. The species has numerous morphological and behavioral adaptations that may be used to avoid predation by fish or crayfish. Aquatic macroinvertebrates and, presumably, Redrock stoneflies are well-adapted to fish predation, whether from native or nonnative species. While crayfish do feed on other aquatic macroinvertebrates, because of its mobility to avoid exposure to crayfish predation, the Redrock stonefly is not expected to be significantly affected. Consequently, we conclude that the best commercial and scientific information available indicates that the Redrock stonefly is not now, or in the foreseeable future, threatened by disease or predation to the extent that listing under the Act as an endangered or threatened species is warranted at this time.

The Arizona Department of Agriculture has the primary authority to manage insects in the State of Arizona. They currently do not provide any regulatory protection for the Redrock stonefly. Because we have not found any existing or future threats to the Redrock stonefly, we believe this lack of direct regulatory protection is acceptable. However, several mechanisms exist that provide some indirect protection for the Redrock stonefly and its habitat from various forms of disturbance and habitat loss, and these are described below.

Redrock stoneflies may derive some indirect conservation benefit from their co-occurrence with other species listed as endangered or threatened under the Act and their critical habitat in Arizona. For example, the Campbell Blue Creek was designated as loach minnow critical habitat in 2007 (72 FR 13355; March 21, 2007). The Service is currently reevaluating loach minnow critical habitat and is proposing approximately 709 mi (1,141 km) of streams as critical habitat (75 FR 66482; October 28, 2010). The Service has also proposed 726 mi (1,168 km) of streams as critical habitat for spikedace ( Meda fulgida ) (75 FR 66482; October 28, 2010). These proposed critical habitat segments overlap the Redrock stonefly sites on Oak, Campbell Blue, Wet Beaver, and Spring Creeks. The Wet Beaver Creek site upstream of the USGS gage and the Upper Tonto Creek sites upstream of Houston Creek were not proposed for critical habitat designation. If the proposed areas are included in critical habitat for one or both endangered fishes, some limited benefits for the Redrock stonefly may occur. Critical habitat only applies to Federal actions and would only consider the impacts to habitat for the fishes; however, there is sufficient overlap in habitats with the Redrock stonefly, so some conservation benefits could occur.

The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSR System) was created by Congress in 1968 (Pub. L. 90-542; 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq. ) to preserve certain rivers with outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational values in a free-flowing condition for the enjoyment of present and future generations. This NWSR System is notable for safeguarding the special character of these rivers, while also recognizing the potential for their appropriate use and development. It encourages river management that crosses political boundaries and promotes public participation in developing goals for river protection. The U.S. Forest Service's policy at FSH 1909.12, Chapter 8.12 states that management prescriptions for eligible rivers should provide the following protection:

(1) Free-flowing characteristics cannot be modified.

(2) Outstandingly remarkable values must be protected, and to the extent practicable, enhanced.

(3) Management and development of the river and its corridor cannot be modified to the degree that eligibility or classification would be affected.

The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest recently submitted an eligibility report, which recommended that Campbell Blue Creek be included in the NWSR System (USDA 2010, pp. 83-87). This Redrock stonefly site is located in Eligible Segment 3, which has the proposed classification as “Recreational.” `Recreational” river sections are readily accessible by road or railroad, may have some development along their shorelines, and may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past (USDA 2010, p. 1). During the interim period, until Congress approves the designation, eligible rivers must be managed under the same guidelines as if designated. Therefore, the Redrock stonefly site on Campbell Blue Creek currently receives protection as if the creek was designated part of the NWSR System (USDA 2006, p. 22). This protection entails specifically the Campbell Blue Creek's free-flowing condition and outstanding remarkable values. Free-flowing is defined in part in the NWRS Act as without impoundment, diversion, straightening, rip-rapping, or other modification of the waterway (16 U.S.C. 1286(b)); all of which benefits the Redrock stonefly and its habitat in Campbell Blue Creek.

An Instream Flow Water Right Permit with the ADWR is a surface water right that remains in-situ or “in-stream,” is not physically diverted or consumptively used, and is for maintaining the flow of water necessary to preserve wildlife, including fish and recreation (ADWR 2009a, pp. 29-30). The Tonto National Forest has an instream flow water right (permit number 96757) for Christopher Creek, which drains into Tonto Creek at one of the Redrock stonefly sites. The Tonto National Forest also has pending instream flow water right applications for Tonto (application number 33-96684) and Haigler (application number 33-96571) Creeks. Both of these applications are currently being protested (Nelson 2011, p. 1). The Tonto National Forest is also compiling an instream flow water right application for Spring Creek (application number 33-96815). The Coconino National Forest has an instream flow water right permit on Spring Creek, an important perennial tributary to Oak Creek (permit number 90114) and a pending instream flow water right for Oak Creek (application number 33-90106). Once in place, these instream water rights will protect enough flow to provide for Redrock stonefly habitat in perpetuity.

Because we have found no other existing or future threats that warrant listing the Redrock stonefly, and some conservation mechanisms are currently in place, we conclude that the best scientific and commercial information available indicates that the Redrock stonefly is not now, or in the foreseeable future, threatened by the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to the extent that listing under the Act as an endangered or threatened species is warranted at this time.

Projected future climate change is most likely to affect aquatic species in the southwestern United States, like the Redrock stonefly, through reduced surface water availability resulting from lower water flows from decreased precipitation. Periods of drought in the Southwest are common, but the frequency and duration of dry periods may be altered by future climate change. Global climate change, and associated effects on regional climatic regimes, is not well understood, but the predictions for the Southwest indicate less overall precipitation and longer periods of drought. Seager et al. (2007, p. 1181) predict, based on broad consensus among 19 climate models, that the Southwest will become drier in the 21st century and that the transition to this drier state is already underway. The increased aridity associated with the current ongoing drought will become the norm for the Southwest within a timeframe of years to decades, if the models are correct (Jacobs et al. 2005, p. 438; Shaw et al. 2005, p. 280; Seager et al. 2007, p. 1183).

Exactly how climate change will affect precipitation patterns is less certain because precipitation predictions are based on continental-scale general circulation models that do not yet account for land use and land-cover-change effects on climate. Consistent with recent observations in changes from climate, the outlook presented for the Southwest predicts warmer, drier, drought-like conditions (Jacobs et al. 2005, p. 437; Shaw et al. 2005, pp. 280-281; Seager et al. 2007, p. 1183; Hoerling and Eischeid 2007, p. 19). A decline in water resources, with or without climate change, will be a significant factor in the watersheds of the desert Southwest.

One predicted effect of climate change is an increase in summer monsoon rains that would seasonally increase stream flows. McGavock (2009, pp. 1-6) describes the effects of increasing air temperatures on base flow of streams within the Verde River watershed, which would apply to the Oak Creek and Wet Beaver Creek Redrock stonefly sites, and likely be applicable to the other sites. Streamflow in Redrock stonefly habitats may increase seasonally as a result of summer monsoon storm runoff. Mitchell et al. (2002, p. 2262) defines the onset of the Arizona summer monsoon period as occurring when sea surface temperatures are a minimum of 84 degrees Fahrenheit (29 degrees Celsius) in the Gulf of California. Earlier attainment of this temperature correlates with a stronger summer monsoon, with the opposite being true if the trigger occurs later. Gradual climate warming could result in earlier and stronger monsoons occurring more frequently and leading to larger summer runoff in Arizona streams (McGavock 2009, p. 3). The resiliency of stoneflies, and presumably the Redrock stonefly, to flooding was discussed under wildfires in Factor A. Flecker and Feifarek (1994, p. 139) found that reductions in aquatic macroinvertebrate densities, including Anacroneuria sp., following floods quickly improved in Venezuelan streams. Aquatic macroinvertebrates have several means to persist during and after flood events such as highly developed refuge-seeking behavior, flexible life histories (such as delaying metamorphism from eggs to young or to adults to more favorable periods), and the ability to recolonize flooded areas rapidly (Scrimgeour and Winterbourn 1989, p. 42). We anticipate that given the widely fluctuating occurrence of summer flood events that presently occur in Arizona (Grimm and Fisher 1989, p. 294) the Redrock stonefly is likely to be resilient and persist if stronger summer floods occur in its habitat as a result of global climate warming.

Another potential effect of climate change is increased snowmelt runoff into streams through a reduction in sublimation. Sublimation is the process of snow evaporating into the atmosphere instead of melting, and can remove large amounts of water from snow that would have led to stream runoff (Montesi et al. 2004, p. 763). Sublimation occurs under cold temperatures with intense sunlight, especially in forested watersheds where snow is held above the ground in trees, where it can sublimate easier (Montesi et al. 2004, p. 763). The Verde River watershed is forested, and during cold winters, can lose large amounts of snow moisture to sublimation. Warmer winter temperatures, as predicted, would reduce sublimation, making more snowmelt available for stream runoff (McGavock 2009, p. 2).

However, if winter temperatures warm too much, winter rains would be expected to increasingly replace snowfall. Snowfall is more conducive to groundwater recharge because water from melting snow has a longer time to infiltrate into the ground than runoff from rainfall. Base flows in these streams that support Redrock stoneflies would be expected to decline later in the summer if groundwater recharge is decreased during future warmer winters (McGavock 2009, p. 5).

Lower summer base flows in streams could result in either the elimination of available surface water (and loss of all habitat), or the reduction in the amount of available surface water. When stream flows are reduced during the summer, water quality generally decreases due to increased water temperature, decreased dissolved oxygen, and concentrated pollutants. Redrock stoneflies would likely use egg or nymphal diapause to survive decreased habitat conditions if climate change or other factors result in reduced flows and degradation of summer habitat conditions.

Climate change may be a significant, long-term source of stress that indirectly exacerbates other potential threats by mechanisms, such as increasing the likelihood of prolonged drought that would reduce groundwater availability and result in future habitat loss. However, we do not currently have sufficient information to determine the potential effects of climate change on the Redrock stonefly. Both the magnitude (the extent of any specific effects) and the imminence (when the effects might occur) of the future effects of climate change remain highly uncertain. Climate change may serve to exacerbate other current or future concerns for habitat loss from other factors. But because we have determined that the Redrock stonefly is not threatened by habitat loss, we cannot predict with any certainty that climate change will exacerbate future habitat concerns sufficiently to consider it a threat to the species. The degree of impact would depend on the intensity and longevity of Redrock stonefly habitat changes that may occur, and these changes cannot be predicted with any certainty in the foreseeable future. In addition, we find that the Redrock stonefly's adaptations to both warm and cold water, low dissolved oxygen, and sediment, discussed above in Factor A, will lessen the potential impacts from climate change. We conclude that the best scientific and commercial information available indicates that the Redrock stonefly is not now, or in the foreseeable future, threatened by other natural or anthropogenic factors affecting its continued existence, or that these factors act cumulatively with other potential threats to the extent that listing under the Act as an endangered or threatened species is warranted at this time.

As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing whether the Redrock stonefly is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We examined the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the Redrock stonefly. We reviewed the petition, information available in our files, and other available published and unpublished information, and we consulted with recognized stonefly experts and other Federal agencies.

Our review of all the available information in consideration of the five factors does not support a determination that any current activities or activities in the foreseeable future are threatening the Redrock stonefly or its habitat. Under our Factor A analysis, we found no significant modifications have occurred to the habitats of the Redrock stonefly and none are expected in the foreseeable future. In addition, the species is well-adapted to sustain itself in areas with minor habitat alterations associated with degraded water quality or altered stream habitats. The only known change in the range of the species has been an increase in distribution due to additional survey efforts. Overutilization (Factor B) and disease (Factor C) are not concerns for this species. Predation (Factor C) by both native and nonnative species likely occurs, but the Redrock stonefly has anti-predatory adaptations that are expected to allow it to withstand the anticipated predatory pressures. We find that existing regulatory mechanisms are sufficient (Factor D). Furthermore, there are current management practices and protections in place that limit or prevent possible negative impacts from human activities. The only issue of concern we found under Factor E is the potential effects of climate change. Future climate change could affect the habitat of Redrock stonefly by reduced stream flows and declining water quality. However, the species appears to be adapted to withstand some habitat degradation. At this time, because of the uncertainties of the local, specific effects of climate change, we cannot adequately assess the magnitude of those effects in the foreseeable future, and therefore, find that climate change is not a threat to the Redrock stonefly.

Based on our review of the best scientific and commercial information available pertaining to the five factors, we find that the threats are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate that the Redrock stonefly is in danger of extinction (endangered), or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened), throughout all or a significant portion of its range (see “Significant Portion of the Range” below). Therefore, we find that listing the Redrock stonefly as an endangered or a threatened species is not warranted at this time.

Having determined that the Redrock stonefly is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range, we must next consider whether there are any significant portions of the range where the species is in danger of extinction or is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.

The Act defines an endangered species as one “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,” and a threatened species as one “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The term “significant portion of its range” is not defined by the statute. For the purposes of this finding, a portion of a species' (Redrock stonefly) range is “significant” if it is part of the current range of the species, and it provides a crucial contribution to the representation, resiliency, or redundancy of the species. For the contribution to be crucial, it must be at a level such that, without that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction.

In determining whether a species is endangered or threatened in a significant portion of its range, we first identify any portions of the range of the species that warrant further consideration. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of the range that are not reasonably likely to be significant and endangered or threatened. To identify only those portions that warrant further consideration, we determine whether there is substantial information indicating that: (1) The portions may be significant, and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction there or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. In practice, a key part of this analysis is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some way. If the threats to the species are essentially uniform throughout its range, no portion is likely to warrant further consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of threats applies only to portions of the species' range that clearly would not meet the biologically based definition of “significant” ( i.e., the loss of that portion clearly would not reasonably be expected to increase the vulnerability to extinction of the entire species to the point that the species would then be in danger of extinction), such portions will not warrant further consideration.

If we identify portions that warrant further consideration, we then determine their status ( i.e., whether in fact the species is endangered or threatened in a significant portion of its range). Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats it faces, it might be more efficient for us to address the “significant” question first, or the status question first. Thus, if we determine that a portion of the range is not “significant,” we do not need to determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there; if we determine that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion is “significant.”

Applying the process described above for determining whether a species is endangered or threatened in a significant portion of its range, we considered status first to determine if any threat or potential threat acting individually or collectively threaten or endanger the Redrock stonefly in a portion of its range. We have analyzed the potential threats to the species and found that some threats, such as potential habitat alteration from water quality degradation from urban development or decline in stream flows from groundwater use, may be acting only in geographic areas associated with larger human populations. However, based on our threats analysis, we found that none of the potential threats, either individually or collectively, are severe enough to cause the Redrock stonefly to be endangered or threatened in these portions of its range, or in any portions of its range that may meet the biologically based definition of “significant.”

We do not find that the Redrock stonefly is in danger of extinction now, nor is it likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future, throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, listing the Redrock stonefly as endangered or threatened under the Act is not warranted at this time.

We request that you submit any new information concerning the status of, or threats to, Redrock stonefly to our Arizona Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES ) whenever it becomes available. New information will help us monitor the stonefly and encourage its conservation. If an emergency situation develops for the Redrock stonefly, or any other species, we will act to provide immediate protection.

A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Arizona Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES section).

The primary authors of this notice are staff members of the Arizona Ecological Services Office.

The authority for this section is section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ).