[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 148 (Tuesday, August 2, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46238-46251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19445]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2011-0048; MO 92210-0-0008-B2]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on 
a Petition to List the Straight Snowfly and Idaho Snowfly as Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
90-day finding on a petition to list the straight snowfly (Capnia 
lineata) and Idaho snowfly (Capnia zukeli) as endangered and to 
designate critical habitat for these species under the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review, we find 
that the petition does not present substantial information indicating 
that listing either of the species may be warranted. Therefore, we are 
not initiating a status review for either the straight snowfly or Idaho 
snowfly in response to this petition. However, we ask the public to 
submit to us any new information that may become available concerning 
the status of, or threats to, the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly or 
their habitats at any time.

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on August 2, 
2011.

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R1-ES-2011-0048. Supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office, 1387 South 
Vinnell Way, Room 368, Boise, ID 83709. Please submit any new 
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding 
to the above street address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian T. Kelly, State Supervisor, 
Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES), by telephone 208-378-
5243, or by facsimile to 208-378-5262. If you use a telecommunications 
device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay 
Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires 
that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or 
reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We 
are to base this finding on information provided in the petition, 
supporting information submitted with the petition, and information 
otherwise available in our files. To the maximum extent practicable, we 
are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition, 
and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
    Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information 
within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day 
petition finding is ``that amount of information that would lead a 
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition 
may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial 
scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to 
promptly conduct a species status review, which we subsequently 
summarize in our 12-month finding.

Petition History

    On June 9, 2010, the Service received a petition dated June 9, 
2010, from the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation and Friends 
of the Clearwater, requesting that we list the straight snowfly and 
Idaho snowfly as endangered, and that we designate critical habitat for 
these species under the Act (hereafter cited as ``Petition''). The 
petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite 
identification information for the petitioners, as required by 50 CFR 
424.14(a). In an August 6, 2010, letter to the petitioners, we 
responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition 
and determined that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing 
the species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act was not warranted. We also 
stated that, due to court orders and

[[Page 46239]]

judicially approved settlement agreements for other listing and 
critical habitat determinations under the Act that required nearly all 
of our listing and critical habitat funding for fiscal year 2010, we 
would not be able to further address the petition at that time, but 
would complete an evaluation of the petition when workload and funding 
allowed. This finding addresses the petition.

Species Information

    The Idaho snowfly was once considered to be the same species as the 
straight snowfly, but is now recognized as a separate species (Nelson 
and Baumann 1989, p. 344). Both the straight and Idaho snowflies are in 
the order Plecoptera (stoneflies), family Capniidae and genus Capnia 
(Stark et al. 1998, p. 1; Nelson and Baumann 1989, entire). We accept 
the characterization of the straight and Idaho snowflies as separate 
species based on the publication of Nelson and Baumann (1989, p. 344), 
which has been accepted by the scientific community.
    Information regarding specific habitat requirements for the 
straight or Idaho snowflies is unknown and is not provided in the 
petition or available in our files (Petition, pp. 7-8; Idaho Department 
of Fish and Game (IDFG) 2005, pp. 582-584). Information generic to the 
order, family, and genus of these species is therefore presented here.
    Stoneflies, in general, are primarily associated with clean, cool 
running waters. The eggs and nymphs of all North American stonefly 
species are aquatic, while the adults (with one exception) are 
terrestrial (Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 217). After hatching from 
eggs, stoneflies usually start feeding and growing immediately, 
although nymphal diapause (delay in development) has been reported in 
some species (Stark et al. 1998, p. 6). During the nymphal growth 
period, stoneflies undergo periodic molting (Stark et al. 1998, p. 6). 
Two general growth patterns are recognized for stoneflies: Fast cycle 
and slow cycle (Stark et al. 1998, p. 6). Fast cycle species undergo 
nymphal or egg diapause for several months and then grow quickly over a 
3- to 4-month period and emerge as adults (Stark et al. 1998, p. 6). 
Slow cycle species hatch directly and grow continuously over a 1- to 3-
year period and then emerge as adults (Stark et al. 1998, p. 6).
    Stonefly nymphs have specific requirements for water temperature, 
substrate type, and stream size, although these vary between species 
(Lillehammer et al. 1989, pp. 181-182). Their microhabitats include the 
hyporheic zone (the subsurface sediment and porous space adjacent to a 
stream where shallow groundwater and surface water mixes), cobble and 
gravel interstices, debris accumulations, and leaf packs (Stewart and 
Harper 1996, p. 217). Adults live on streamside riparian vegetation, 
rocks, or debris (Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 217).
    The Capniidae family is the most species-rich family of stoneflies 
in North America (Stark et al. 1998, p. 85). One of the primary 
distinguishing characteristics of this family is the period of adult 
emergence that occurs from late winter to early spring (Baumann et al. 
1977, p. 56; Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 218), when adults are often 
found crawling on snow and ice (Baumann et al. 1977, p. 56; Nelson in 
litt. 1996, p. 2; Stark et al. 1998, p. 85). Capnia is the largest 
genus in the Capniidae family. Although species in North America range 
from coast to coast, they are particularly abundant west of the Great 
Plains (Stark et al. 1998, p. 89).
    Species in the Capniidae family can be found in a variety of lotic 
(flowing water) habitats, with a small number found in lentic (standing 
water) systems, such as cold, pristine mountain lakes (Stark et al. 
1998, p. 86). Capniid nymphs inhabit the freshwater hyporheic zone 
where they feed on detritus, making them important bases of the food 
web in these relatively energy-poor zones (Nelson in litt. 1996, p. 2; 
Stark et al. 1998, p. 86). Given that they inhabit the hyporheic zone, 
they are not always encountered in standard benthic (bottom of a water 
body) samples (Nelson in litt. 1996, p. 2).
    Members of the genus Capnia are found in both cold and warm lotic 
habitats (Baumann 1979, pp. 242-243). Capnia species are shredders of 
decomposing plant tissue and coarse particulate organic matter (Stewart 
and Harper 1996, p. 264). North American Capnia species are thought to 
have univoltine (one brood of offspring per year), fast life cycles 
(Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 218; Stewart and Stark 2002, p. 125), with 
nymphs entering diapause in the hyporheic zone in summer (Stewart and 
Harper 1996, p. 218). In general, adult Capnia emerge earliest at lower 
elevations and southerly latitudes, with later emergence occurring as 
elevation increases, or as one proceeds north (Nelson and Baumann 1989, 
p. 291). Adults of the straight snowfly are reported to emerge from 
late February through June, while adults of the Idaho snowfly are 
reported to emerge during a shorter window from April through early 
June (Nelson and Baumann 1989, pp. 340, 344).
    The straight snowfly and Idaho snowfly were originally described by 
Hanson (1943, pp. 85-88) from straight snowfly specimens collected in 
1911 from Troy, Idaho, and Idaho snowfly specimens collected in 1938 
from Moscow, Idaho. While the straight and Idaho snowflies are similar 
and occupy the same range and similar habitat, they are described as 
separate species due to morphological differences. The Idaho snowfly 
exhibits an extremely long epiproct (a triangular or shield-shaped 
plate covering the dorsal surface of the terminal abdominal segments), 
the absence of tergal (upper surface of abdominal segment) knobs, and 
brachyptery (short-wings; Nelson and Baumann 1989, p. 344); the 
straight snowfly differs from the most similar Capnia confusa by its 
relatively longer epiproct, visible evidence of a sclerotized 
(hardened) bridge between sternites (ventral plate of a body segment) 
seven and eight, and short wings exhibited by males (Nelson and Baumann 
1989, p. 340). Adults of Capnia are relatively small and black, and are 
usually less than 0.4 inches (10 millimeters) in length (Baumann et al. 
1977, p. 61; Stark et al. 1998, p. 90).
Historical and Current Distribution
    The reported distribution of the straight and Idaho snowflies is 
within Latah County in northern Idaho (Hanson 1943, pp. 85-88; Nelson 
and Baumann 1989, p. 340; IDFG 2005, pp. 582-584), where they have been 
documented within the Potlatch and Palouse rivers and their tributaries 
(Nelson and Baumann 1989, p. 344). Collectively, there were 32 
documented occurrences for both Idaho-endemic species between the years 
1911 and 1989 (Petition, p. 31 (Appendix I)).
    The straight snowfly has been collected from eight waterbodies in 
the Potlatch Watershed (Big Bear Creek, Little Bear Creek, West Fork 
Little Bear Creek, Little Boulder Creek, Hog Meadow Creek, Potlatch 
River, Spring Valley Creek, and Spring Valley Reservoir) and three 
waterbodies in the Palouse Watershed (Lost Creek, Robinson Lake, and 
South Fork Palouse River). There are some additional collection 
locations generally recorded as ``Troy,'' ``Moscow,'' and other 
localities east and northeast of Moscow, Idaho (Petition, p. 7).
    The Idaho snowfly has been recorded from three waterbodies in the 
Potlatch Watershed (Little Boulder Creek, Potlatch River, and Spring 
Valley Creek), and one waterbody in the Palouse Watershed (Palouse 
River). This species also has some additional general locations 
documented, including

[[Page 46240]]

``Moscow,'' ``Moscow Mountain,'' and ``Troy Creek'' (Petition, p. 7).
    Prior to the 1980s, it appears that collections of both species 
were on a purely opportunistic or incidental basis, as there are only a 
handful of records for each (three for the Idaho snowfly: In 1938, 
1962, and 1977; and eight for the straight snowfly: One in 1911, one in 
1930, and six from the 1960s and 1970s (Petition, Appendix I)). 
Although the number of documented occurrences increased for both 
species during the 1980s, it is unclear whether this was the result of 
focused searches to document the full extent of their respective 
ranges, or if there were simply an increased number of collections of 
the two species incidental to other efforts. The actual historical 
distribution of both the straight snowfly and the Idaho snowfly is 
therefore unknown.
    The Idaho snowfly has not been collected since 1985, and the 
straight snowfly has not been collected since 1989, but according to 
the petitioners, there have not been any targeted surveys for either 
species since that time (Petition, pp. 7, 31). Information on the 
extent and methodology of surveys within the Palouse and Potlatch 
drainages and other similar watersheds, or information regarding any 
surveys that may have occurred since the 1980s for either species, was 
not provided in the petition, nor is it available in our files. The 
petition does not provide any information, nor do we have any 
information available in our files, to suggest that further attempts 
have been made to locate additional populations of either species, or 
that historical documented occurrences of either species have been 
revisited since the 1980s to verify their continued presence or 
absence. All of the references cited by the petitioners with regard to 
species surveys were personal communications. Although we requested 
copies of these personal communications from the petitioners, they were 
not provided to us; therefore, we are not able to consider them in our 
evaluation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) in litt. 2010, 
entire). Whether the distribution of either species has changed since 
they were last observed in the mid-to late 1980s is unknown, and the 
petition presents no evidence to suggest their distributions have 
changed.
Population Status and Trend
    According to the petition, abundance estimates are not known to 
have been made for either species at any site; apparently the only 
available information regarding species abundance is that past 
collections, based on a single location and date, have ranged from 1 to 
87 individuals of the straight snowfly, and from 1 to 89 individuals of 
the Idaho snowfly (Petition, p. 7). We have no additional information 
regarding abundance for either species available to us in our files.
    According to the petition, the Nature Serve global rankings are G3 
(vulnerable) for the straight snowfly and G2 (imperiled) for the Idaho 
snowfly (Petition, p. 5). As noted by the petitioners, however, these 
ranking have since been changed to reflect a correction in the 
distribution of the straight snowfly (NatureServe 2010a, p. 1; 
NatureServe 2010b, p. 1). Both the straight and Idaho snowflies 
currently have a Global Heritage Status Rank of G2 and a National 
Status Rank of N2 (NatureServe 2010a, p. 1; NatureServe 2010b, p. 1). 
According to NatureServe, a rank of G2 signifies that a species is at a 
high risk of extinction or elimination due to very restricted range, 
very few populations, steep declines, or other factors. The N2 rank is 
assigned based upon the same factors, and species in this category are 
defined as imperiled in the nation and State because of rarity due to 
very restricted range, very few populations, steep declines, or other 
factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation. Although we do not 
know which of these factors may have served as the basis for these 
rankings, and whether they may simply reflect the presumably limited 
range of these endemic species, we note that the NatureServe accounts 
do not provide any information regarding population abundance or trend 
for either species, and further clearly state that specific threats 
have not been identified for populations of either species (NatureServe 
2010a, p. 2; NatureServe 2010b, p. 1). In addition, collections for 
either snowfly species have not been reported since 1989, and no 
surveys for the species are known to have been conducted since then 
(Petition, pp. 7, 31). Based on NatureServe's ranking system, the 
occurrences of both straight and Idaho snowflies reported in the 
petition could therefore be considered ``historical,'' because it has 
been over 20 years since they were last documented (Hammerson et al. 
2008, p. 4).
    Both the straight and Idaho snowfly are also listed as Species of 
Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) according to the IDFG Comprehensive 
Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) (IDFG 2005, pp. 582-584). The 
straight snowfly is listed with a Statewide S1 ranking, meaning that it 
is critically imperiled. However, the CWCS cites, as the basis for this 
ranking, the ``lack of essential information pertaining to status; 1 
known location and no population trend data'' (IDFG 2005, p. 582). The 
Idaho snowfly is also ranked S1 Statewide, and is included as a SGCN 
due to ``lack of essential information pertaining to status; no 
population trend data'' (IDFG 2005, p. 584). The CWCS recommends that 
further surveys and studies be conducted to determine the distribution 
and habitat needs for both species (IDFG 2005, pp. 582-584). However, 
we have no information to suggest that any further surveys or studies 
have been performed to date. While the petition states that both 
species are considered species of concern by the U.S. Forest Service, 
our records indicate that neither species has conservation status or 
classification with the U.S. Forest Service or U.S. Bureau of Land 
Management (IDFG 2005, pp. 582-584).
    In summary, the petition provided no information, and we have none 
available in our files, to inform us as to the population status of 
either species. Although the petitioners contend that ``the number and 
abundance of populations of these species are likely to have declined'' 
(Petition, p. 7), and ``are in imminent danger of extinction'' 
(Petition, p. 5), the petition offers no support for these statements. 
Neither historical nor current estimates of abundance are available; 
therefore, it is not possible to discern any trend in population 
abundance of either species over time. In addition, although we have 
some historical information on distribution, no surveys have been 
conducted for either species in over 20 years, so we have no 
information to indicate that their distribution has changed. Although 
the rankings of the straight snowfly and Idaho snowfly by NatureServe 
and the State of Idaho seem to suggest that the species are imperiled, 
an inspection of the basis for these rankings indicates that they 
merely reflect a lack of data with which to discern the status of the 
species; hence, these rankings may more accurately reflect only the 
limited known geographic distribution of the snowflies, as there is no 
evidence of any decline or range contraction for either species. In its 
CWCS, IDFG concluded that the data are too limited to adequately assess 
the distribution, population size, and status of either the straight 
snowfly or Idaho snowfly (IDFG 2005, pp. 582-584). Based on the 
information provided in the petition and readily available to us in our 
files, we agree. We have no data to inform us as to the current 
distribution, abundance, or population trend of either the straight 
snowfly or Idaho snowfly, and, therefore, no

[[Page 46241]]

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

Evaluation of Information for This Finding

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR part 424 set forth the procedures for adding a 
species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be 
an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five 
factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' 
continued existence.
    In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look 
beyond the exposure of the species to a particular factor to evaluate 
whether the species may respond to that factor in a way that causes 
actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor and the 
species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we attempt 
to determine how significant a threat it is. The threat may be 
significant if it drives, or contributes to, the risk of extinction of 
the species such that the species may warrant listing as endangered or 
threatened as those terms are defined by the Act. The identification of 
factors that could impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to 
compel a finding that substantial information has been presented 
suggesting that listing may be warranted; virtually all species face 
some degree of threat. The information should contain evidence or the 
reasonable extrapolation that any factor(s) may be an operative threat 
that acts on the species to the point that the species may meet the 
definition of endangered or threatened under the Act.
    In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information 
regarding the threats to the straight snowfly or the Idaho snowfly as 
presented in the petition and other information available in our files, 
is substantial, thereby indicating that the petitioned action may be 
warranted. Our evaluation of this information is presented below.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range

    The petition states that the straight and Idaho snowflies require 
specific environmental conditions to survive, and that habitat and 
water quality conditions have been impaired in the majority of the 
streams where both species occur. The primary causes of stream 
impairment cited in the petition are timber harvest operations, 
agriculture, livestock grazing, recreational use, and development, each 
of which, the petitioners contend, leads to habitat degradation that 
threatens the survival of both species.

Timber Harvest and Related Activities

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition states that the Palouse Ranger District of the 
Clearwater National Forest, home to the ``largest site cluster'' for 
both the straight and Idaho snowfly, has been heavily logged and 
disturbed by associated logging road construction from past timber 
harvest activities (Petition, p. 10). The petitioners also state that 
an ongoing U.S. Forest Service project (approved in 2006; Petition, p. 
10) within the area, the Cherry Dinner project (U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) 2006, entire; USDA in litt. 2008, p. 6), is 
impacting both the Hog Meadow and Little Boulder Creek drainages, where 
both snowfly species were previously collected in the 1980s (Petition, 
pp. 31-33). The petitioners state that the Cherry Dinner project 
incorporates timber harvest activities, including 310 acres (ac) (126 
hectares (ha)) of understory slashing and burning; logging of 2,210 ac 
(894 ha); construction of 8.1 and 1.5 miles (mi) (13 and 2.4 kilometers 
(km)) of permanent and temporary roads, respectively; and 
reconstruction of 9.4 mi (15 km) of existing roads (Petition, p. 10; 
USDA 2006, p. 66497). The petitioners did not state how the proposed 
action would specifically impair Hog Meadow and Little Boulder Creeks.
    The petition refers to ``another site'' (which we assume means 
another site where one or both of the snowfly species had been 
documented in the past, although the petition does not clarify this 
point) located on a small patch of private land within the Clearwater 
National Forest near the confluence of Nat Brown Creek and the Potlatch 
River that has been heavily logged and degraded by logging road 
construction in the past with numerous railroad grades along the creeks 
(Petition, p. 11). According to the petition, most of these railroad 
grades are now reported to be roads. More recently, the petition states 
considerable logging of National Forest land within the Potlatch 
watershed above this same site was approved in the West Fork Potlatch 
Timber Sale environmental impact statement (EIS) and Record of Decision 
(Petition, p. 11). Additionally, the petitioners state the Idaho 
Department of Lands (IDL) Fiscal Year 2010 Timber Sales Plan includes 
an auction of 500 ac (200 ha) in the same area as the West Fork 
Potlatch Timber Sale (IDL 2010, p. 22). Activities associated with this 
sale include harvesting mature timber using overstory removal, seed 
trees, and a clearcut of approximately 99 ac (40 ha), along with the 
construction of 2.5 mi (4.0 km) of spur road (IDL 2010, p. 22). As 
discussed further below, the petitioners contend that such forestry 
operations threaten the habitat suitability and long-term survival of 
the snowflies (Petition, p. 11).
    The petition also asserts that the Upper Lochsa Land Exchange may 
threaten the two snowflies. This exchange is an agreement currently 
being considered by the U.S. Forest Service and Western Pacific Timber 
in the Potlatch watershed. In this agreement, 4,300 ac (1,740 ha) of 
National Forest land in Latah County would be exchanged for land 
elsewhere outside of the range of the straight and Idaho snowflies 
(USDA in litt. 2010a, p. 2; USDA in litt. 2010b). Four of the proposed 
exchange parcels are on National Forest lands along the Potlatch River, 
approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) downstream from a cluster of previous 
collection sites for both the straight and Idaho snowflies (Petition, 
p. 11). The petitioners state that if these parcels are removed from 
public ownership, timber harvest and real estate development are likely 
to occur. According to the petitioners, these activities would further 
compromise locations where these species were documented to occur in 
the Potlatch watershed (Moose Creek to Corral Creek; Petition, p. 11), 
which is already impaired and listed under section 303(d) of the Clean 
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) due to elevated temperature (Idaho 
Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) 2008, p. xix; Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) in litt. 2008, p. 3).
    The petitioners assert that forestry-related activities are 
affecting aquatic habitat for the straight and Idaho snowflies by 
altering hydrological patterns, contributing increased sediment loads 
in streams, and influencing stream temperatures (Petition, p. 11). The 
petition states that logging roads increase the amount of

[[Page 46242]]

compacted or impervious surfaces, reduce water infiltration, and remove 
vegetation, thereby increasing surface water runoff to streams that 
leads to increased erosion, turbidity, and sedimentation (Petition, p. 
12; Cederholm et al. 1980, p. vi). The petition alleges that logging 
roads alter aquatic habitat for the snowflies by increasing flooding, 
facilitating the delivery of contaminants to streams, altering the 
stream channel, and increasing invasive plant species (Petition, p. 12; 
Jones et al. 2000, p. 76; Gucinski et al. 2001, entire; Forman and 
Alexander 1999, pp. 216, 219-221).
    The petition states that impaired water quality and habitat 
conditions have already been documented in the majority of the streams 
where these species occur. It further states that each of the streams 
within the species' ranges that were recently investigated by the IDEQ 
failed the multimetric assessment (known as the ``Beneficial Use 
Reconnaissance Program'' or BURP), based on biological and physical 
characteristics, indicating these creeks do not support their 
designated beneficial uses, including support of cold-water aquatic 
organisms (Petition, p. 10).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    The ongoing U.S. Forest Service Cherry Dinner project and 
associated timber harvest activities are specifically cited in the 
petition as threatening the habitat for the straight and Idaho 
snowflies, but the analysis provided in the petition and information 
available in our files regarding how the project will impact or affect 
these two species is very limited. Furthermore, while this project 
includes timber harvest and road construction activities, as cited in 
the petition, the petition does not make note of those measures 
included in the Cherry Dinner project that are aimed at reducing 
impacts to stream habitats. Some of these measures would directly 
address several of the alleged threats to the two snowflies as 
characterized by the petitioners (Petition, pp. 10-11). For example, 
one of the identified purposes and needs for the Cherry Dinner project 
is to ``reduce long-term sedimentation to streams caused by existing 
unsurfaced roads, and to stabilize stream banks made unstable by 
motorized vehicles, cattle trailing, and channelization (historic 
railroad grades)'' (USDA 2006, p. 66497). The project plan incorporates 
watershed improvements, including decommissioning 24.2 mi (39 km) of 
roads, putting 24.6 mi (40 km) of existing roads into intermittent 
stored service (self-maintaining), and stabilizing 4.8 mi (7.7 km) of 
streambank along the East Fork Potlatch River and its tributaries (USDA 
2006, p. 66497). The petition did not present any specific information, 
and we have no information available in our files, that suggests there 
is any link between this project and any population response on the 
part of either the straight snowfly or the Idaho snowfly.
    Similarly, the petition alleges threats to the Potlatch watershed, 
in general, from increased activities related to industrial logging, 
real estate development, and road construction associated within the 
proposed Upper Lochsa Land Exchange (Petition, p. 11). However, the 
petition provides no specific information, and we have none available 
in our files, suggesting any link between those alleged threats and the 
status of the snowflies or their habitats. Other timber sales on 
National Forest and State lands are cited in the petition as occurring 
within the range of both snowflies, but analysis provided of potential 
effects is limited to a description of activities, and the personal 
communication cited as a reference in the petition to describe existing 
conditions from past timber harvest activities (Petition, p. 11) was 
not provided to the Service for our review, nor do we have any 
pertinent information available in our files.
    The petitioners argue that impaired water quality and habitat 
conditions have already been documented in the majority of the streams 
where these species occur. However, we did not find that to be the 
case, based on the information presented in the petition and available 
in our files. As described in the petition (p. 7), the straight snowfly 
has been recorded from a total of 11 specific waterbodies in two 
watersheds and an unspecified number of additional general locations; 
the Idaho snowfly has been recorded from 4 specific waterbodies in two 
watersheds and some other unspecified number of general locales as 
well. Of these locations, it appears the IDEQ has assessed water 
quality standards in a total of five waterbodies where the species were 
documented: Big Bear Creek (straight snowfly), West Fork Little Bear 
Creek (straight snowfly), South Fork Palouse River (straight snowfly), 
Little Boulder Creek (both species), and the Potlatch River (both 
species) (IDEQ 2007, pp. xviii, 35; IDEQ 2008, pp. 52, 53).
    The EPA is responsible for ensuring that Idaho complies with the 
Clean Water Act, and requires IDEQ to adopt water quality standards and 
submit those standards to the EPA every 3 years. Water quality 
standards address various beneficial uses designated, or presumed, for 
specific water bodies, and define the criteria needed to support those 
uses. The IDEQ must monitor State waters to identify those that do not 
meet water quality standards; impaired waters that do not meet the 
standards are included on the Clean Water Act's section 303(d) list 
(IDEQ 2008, p. 1). We acknowledge that many of the waterbodies sampled 
by IDEQ in the Potlatch River and South Fork Palouse River Watersheds, 
including some where one or both of the two snowfly species may have 
been collected in the past, were found to violate some aspect of 
Idaho's water quality standards. However, it is not clear whether the 
areas sampled for water quality directly correspond to the areas where 
snowfly presence was previously documented. For example, although both 
snowflies are documented from the ``Potlatch River'' (Petition, p. 7), 
the IDEQ provides reports for the ``Potlatch River from Big Bear Creek 
to the mouth,'' for the ``East Fork Potlatch River'' and ``West Fork 
Potlatch River,'' and then for various reaches within those rivers, all 
which may differ in their results (IDEQ 2008, p. 52). The Potlatch 
River from Big Bear Creek to the mouth passed the BURP multimetric 
assessment, and some reaches of the East Fork Potlatch River passed, 
whereas others failed (IDEQ 2008, p. 52). If a stream did not pass the 
assessment, it was because it was found that ``biological 
characteristics do not support beneficial uses and the stream fails the 
assessment'' (IDEQ 2008, p. 51). Uncertainty as to whether the reaches 
sampled by IDEQ are representative of areas where either of the two 
snowfly species has been documented makes it difficult to evaluate the 
potential implications of the IDEQ assessments to the two species.
    The petition provides only broad references about the typically 
narrow environmental tolerances of stoneflies in general, but provides 
us with no data, and we have none available in our files, to inform us 
as to the specific habitat requirements of these two snowfly species, 
or to suggest what effect the present water quality conditions may have 
on either species. For example, with regard to water temperature, the 
petition states that ``requirements for Capnia lineata and C. zukeli 
have not been specifically documented, but other lotic, cold water 
species in this family are known to require dissolved oxygen 
saturations of 80 to 100%, and typically inhabit streams, creeks, and 
rivers with mean temperatures below 16 [deg]C''

[[Page 46243]]

(Petition, p. 8). Whether this generalized temperature requirement may 
apply to the straight and Idaho snowflies, however, is unknown. 
Information from the State of Idaho's watershed assessment reports, 
provided by the petitioners, suggests that the State considers water 
temperatures not exceeding a daily average of 66 [deg]F (19 [deg]C) as 
the standard for supporting cold-water aquatic life beneficial use 
(IDEQ 2007, p. 28). Although the petition states that stonefly larvae 
in particular have very narrow environmental requirements and are 
particularly vulnerable to impacts on water quality, such as changes in 
temperature, references provided in the petition also suggest that 
there is considerable variation in these requirements between species 
(Lillehammer et al. 1989, p. 179). As the water quality requirements of 
either the straight or Idaho snowflies is unknown, we have no 
information to allow us to determine how changes in various aspects of 
water quality may affect the species. In addition, as the last known 
collections or surveys for either species were in 1989, with no 
targeted collections or surveys since, we have no evidence to suggest 
that the abundance or distribution of either species has been 
curtailed. Therefore, we have no substantial information to suggest the 
compromised water quality noted at some locations in the IDEQ reports 
may be impacting either species to the degree that the species may 
potentially be threatened with extinction, now or within the 
foreseeable future.
    Most of the information presented in the petition regarding timber 
harvest and associated activities is related to the generalized effects 
on streams and aquatic habitats, but the petition does not present 
information specific to the effects of these activities on either the 
straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly. Although stonefly species in general 
may potentially be affected by such activities, the petition does not 
provide information, and we have none available in our files, that 
indicates the degree to which the straight or Idaho snowflies may 
actually be exposed to the effects of these activities, or that allows 
us to quantify or evaluate the severity of any potential impact from 
these activities on the species.
    Additionally, because there have been no known surveys for the two 
snowflies since the 1980s, we could find no current population size, 
distribution, or trend data in the petition or in our files that would 
enable us to determine whether any alleged impacts from timber harvest 
and associated activities, described as threats in the petition, may 
significantly affect the snowflies or their habitats. As stated 
previously, we have no evidence to suggest that the abundance or 
distribution of either species has been curtailed. While we understand 
that past and present timber harvest and their related activities have 
likely affected aquatic habitats, we have no available substantial 
information, and the petition has presented none, to allow us to 
quantify or evaluate these threats to either species, or to suggest 
that timber harvest may be a threat of such significance as to 
potentially threaten the straight snowfly or the Idaho snowfly with 
extinction, now or within the foreseeable future.

Agriculture and Related Activities

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition states agriculture poses significant threats to the 
long-term survival of the straight and Idaho snowflies in the 
southwestern portions of their range (Petition, p. 12). Five creeks 
where the two snowflies were documented in the 1960s and early 1980s 
(Big Bear Creek, Little Bear Creek, West Fork Little Bear Creek, 
Palouse River, and South Fork Palouse River) are located directly below 
upland agriculture for the majority of their lengths (Petition, pp. 12, 
31). The petition asserts the conversion of native bunchgrass prairie 
to predominately annual crops within the Potlatch River watershed has 
left the soil susceptible to wind and water (precipitation runoff) 
erosion, and resulted in increased overland surface flow and decreased 
infiltration of water into the soil (Petition, p. 12). According to the 
petition, this has caused high sediment loads in streams and altered 
the stream hydrograph, with high peak flows following precipitation 
events and extremely low base-flows in summer within the Potlatch River 
watershed (IDFG 2006, pp. 1-2). The petition states Big Bear Creek, 
Little Bear Creek, and West Fork Little Bear Creek, where the straight 
and Idaho snowflies were collected in the 1960s and early 1980s, are 
now characterized as having a low gradient with incised channels, 
limited riparian vegetation, small substrate composition, and altered 
hydrographs (IDFG 2006, p. 2).
    The petition asserts chemical use related to agriculture, such as 
herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers, negatively affects water 
chemistry within the southwestern range of the straight and Idaho 
snowflies, posing a serious threat to both species (Petition, p. 13). 
Triallate, a pre-emergent, selective, thiocarbamate herbicide was 
identified in the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water-Quality 
Assessment's Central Columbia Plateau study as the most commonly used 
pesticide in the Palouse study subunit, a portion of which is within 
the range of both snowflies (Roberts and Wagner 1996, p. 1). 
Concentrations of triallate, along with three other pesticides, 
diazinon, carbaryl, and gamma-HCH, were also detected in the Palouse 
subunit at levels above the freshwater-chronic criteria for the 
protection of aquatic life (Roberts and Wagner 1996, p. 3). While 
triallate's toxicity to stoneflies is unknown, it is documented to be 
toxic to other aquatic insects (Kegley et al. in litt. 2009a, pp. 2-3). 
Trifluralin, an herbicide formulated with triallate was documented at 
lower concentrations in streams within the Palouse subunit, and has 
been cited as causing mortality in aquatic species including stoneflies 
(Petition, p. 13; Kegley et al. in litt. 2009d, entire; Stavola and 
Patterson 2004, entire). Additionally, the petitioners state that 
diazinon and carbaryl are highly toxic to stoneflies (Petition, p. 13; 
Kegley et al. in litt. 2009b, entire), and along with triallate and 
trifluralin, pose a serious threat to both the straight and Idaho 
snowflies (Petition, p. 13; Kegley et al. in litt. 2009a, pp. 2-3).
    In addition to the use of pesticides, the petition states high 
application rates of ammonium-based nitrogen fertilizers within the 
Palouse River watershed pose additional concerns for the straight and 
Idaho snowflies (Petition, p. 13). If these fertilizers get into the 
water, the high ammonia concentrations and other nutrient inputs can 
lead to excess algae growth, can cause oxygen depletion due to the 
growth and decomposition cycle of algae, and can cause increased 
biochemical oxygen demand as ammonia is transformed to nitrate-nitrogen 
(Petition, pp. 13-14). The petition asserts a reduction in dissolved 
oxygen is deleterious to stoneflies, in general, and poses a 
significant threat to both snowfly species (Petition, p. 14). The 
petition did not, however, provide any evidence that high ammonia 
concentrations have been observed in waters where the two snowfly 
species have been documented.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    Based on information available in our files, the Service agrees 
that the Palouse Prairie ecosystem, which includes Latah County and the 
range of the straight and Idaho snowflies, has been heavily impacted by 
past agricultural activities, with 94 percent of the grasslands and 97 
percent of the wetlands converted to crops, hay, or pasture since 1870 
(Black

[[Page 46244]]

et al. 2003, p. 1). Between 1931 and 1979, the last significant area of 
native plant communities was plowed (Black et al. 2003, p. 7). Portions 
of the Potlatch River drainage are now subject to high water 
temperatures, high variability in flow, and altered riparian and upland 
habitats, conditions that have been present since European settlement 
when changes to land-uses altered the landscape and hydrology within 
the Potlatch River (IDFG 2006, p. 23). These conditions will likely 
remain constant until further human development or intense restoration 
efforts occur (IDFG 2006, p. 23). Since 1970, little change has 
occurred in the overall land area devoted to agriculture. However, 
certain highly erodible lands have been temporarily removed from crop 
production under the Federal Conservation Reserve Program, with 34,594 
ac (14,000 ha) removed from agriculture production and planted 
primarily with introduced perennial grasses in Latah County alone 
(Black et al. 2003, p. 8).
    While we agree the Palouse Prairie ecosystem and portions of the 
straight and Idaho snowflies' range have experienced a dramatic 
conversion of native habitat to agriculture over the last century, 
information linking any potential effects of agriculture to the status 
of the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly is currently not available in 
the petition, supporting documentation, or our files. The petition 
provides general information regarding agricultural chemical use within 
the Palouse region and the potential effects on certain stoneflies and 
aquatic insects (Petition, pp. 13-14), but information is provided at 
the Palouse River watershed level and is not specific to known snowfly 
populations (Roberts and Wagner 1996, entire). The level of 
agricultural chemical use within the Potlatch River watershed at sites 
where both snowfly species have been documented (Petition, pp. 6-7) is 
also unknown, although the petition cites an Idaho State Department of 
Agriculture study in the Clearwater Basin that concluded, ``all 
pesticide concentrations detected during this study were below any 
chronic or acute levels that may cause ill effects for aquatic 
species'' (Petition, p. 13). It is unknown, from information in the 
petition or in our files, what effect current agricultural chemical use 
may be having on either snowfly species. Although some of the 
agricultural chemicals used in the region may have varying degrees of 
toxicity to stoneflies, we do not have any information to assist us in 
determining what level of exposure to these chemicals, if any, is being 
experienced by the snowflies, and if exposed, what the potential 
consequence of that exposure may be. Consequently, we are unable to 
quantify or evaluate threats to the two snowfly species from 
agricultural chemical use, based on the information presented in the 
petition and available in our files.
    Most of the information presented in the petition and assertions 
made regarding threats from agriculture and associated activities are 
related to the generalized effects on streams, aquatic habitats, and 
several other aquatic insects, including stoneflies, but are not 
specific to the straight or Idaho snowflies or the sites of their 
documented occurrence. Additionally, because there have been no known 
surveys for the straight or Idaho snowfly since 1989, we could find no 
current population size, distribution, or trend data in the petition or 
in our files that would enable us to determine whether the potential 
threats from agriculture and related activities as described in the 
petition may indeed be a threat to the species' existence. In addition, 
certain conservation programs, such as the Federal Conservation Reserve 
Program, have been recently implemented within the known distribution 
of both snowflies (Black et al. 2003, p. 8), and may be benefiting both 
species by reducing agriculture-related effects to streams where 
snowflies were collected. At present we have no evidence to suggest 
that the abundance or distribution of either species has been curtailed 
in any way. We therefore have no available substantial information, and 
the petition has presented none, to suggest that agriculture and 
related activities may be a threat of such significance as to 
potentially threaten the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly with 
extinction, now or within the foreseeable future.

Livestock Grazing

Information Provided in the Petition
    Within the range of the straight and Idaho snowflies, the petition 
states that livestock grazing has degraded water quality and negatively 
impacted aquatic macroinvertebrate communities through trampling and 
consumption of riparian vegetation, downcutting the riparian buffer, 
defecating and urinating within the stream channel and banks, and 
increasing sedimentation through the removal of riparian vegetation and 
trampling to channel banks (Petition, p. 14). The petitioners generally 
assert that livestock grazing has been shown to result in the loss of 
biodiversity, disruption of biological communities, and dramatic 
alteration of terrestrial and aquatic communities (Petition, p. 14).
    The petitioners assert that livestock grazing-related impairment to 
water quality has occurred at most sites where the straight and Idaho 
snowflies were collected (Petition, p. 14). All known straight and 
Idaho snowfly collection sites on the Clearwater National Forest are 
within the currently active Potlatch Creek grazing allotment (Petition, 
pp. 14, 36; USDA in litt. 2007). This allotment utilizes a pasture 
rotation system and is active annually from June 8 through November 7 
(USDA 2009a, p. 1). The petitioners state that the Potlatch River, 
within the Potlatch Creek allotment between Moose Creek and Corral 
Creek, where both snowfly species have been documented, fails to meet 
Idaho's water quality standards due to elevated temperature levels 
(Petition, p. 14; IDEQ 2008, p. xx; EPA in litt. 2008, p. 3). At a site 
where the straight snowfly was collected near the confluence of Nat 
Brown Creek and the Potlatch River, the petition asserts that impacts 
from livestock grazing are occurring in the Purdue and West Fork 
Potlatch-Moose Creek allotments on both National Forest and non-
National Forest lands (Petition, p. 14). The Potlatch-Moose Creek 
allotment uses a three-pasture rotation grazing system that is active 
from June 1 through October 31 (USDA 2009b, p. 1). The petition also 
noted that cattle-degraded conditions have been documented by the U.S. 
Forest Service at Nat Brown Creek and this area is targeted for habitat 
restoration projects (USDA 2008, p. 24).
    The petition states that livestock attraction to riparian areas is 
higher during the summer and fall (Clary and Webster 1989, p. 2; 
Leonard et al. 1997, p. 11). This timing coincides with the annual 
grazing season for allotments that contain streams with snowfly 
collection sites, which the petitioners claim further increases the 
potential for livestock to have serious, adverse effects on both 
snowfly species (Petition, p. 14). The petitioners cite a specific 
study of a mountain stream in Northeastern Oregon where significant 
reductions were documented in species richness and abundance of the 
Plecoptera taxa (stoneflies) in grazed versus ungrazed controls (McIver 
and McInnis 2007, p. 298). However, the petition did not provide 
supporting information on grazing effects specific to the straight or 
Idaho snowflies.

[[Page 46245]]

Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    The petition claimed that existing water quality and habitat 
conditions for the straight and Idaho snowflies are being impacted by 
ongoing grazing on National Forest and adjacent lands within the range 
of the two species, although it is unclear from the information 
provided in the petition or in our files what the actual level of 
impact from grazing may be. Although the Service acknowledges that 
grazing is occurring within the range of the two species and may 
adversely affect water quality to some degree, the petition did not 
provide any supporting information, and we have none available in our 
files, that demonstrate any relationship between grazing and the status 
of either the straight snowfly or the Idaho snowfly. Information in the 
petition or in our files is not sufficient to suggest that there may be 
any specific effects of livestock grazing on either snowfly species, as 
no information is presented regarding either the level of impact that 
may be occurring as a result of grazing, or evidence of any negative 
population response by either snowfly species.
    While the information in the petition and in our files documents 
existing livestock grazing and water quality conditions within a 
portion of the straight and Idaho snowflies' known range, the 
information presented in the petition is restricted to the generalized 
effect of grazing on streams, aquatic habitats, or macroinvertebrate 
communities, but is not specific to the straight or Idaho snowflies. 
The petition does not provide information, and we have none available 
in our files, describing the level of impact that may potentially be 
occurring at straight or Idaho snowfly sites as a result of livestock 
grazing, therefore we have no data to verify or quantify this threat to 
either species. Although the petitioners indicated that grazing is 
occurring at some sites where the snowflies were documented in the 
past, and the U.S. Forest Service noted degraded riparian conditions at 
one location related to cattle, the petition provides no specific 
information as to the level of impact that may potentially be 
experienced by the snowflies as a result of grazing activities. 
Additionally, because there have been no known surveys for either the 
straight or Idaho snowfly since 1989, we could find no current 
population size, distribution, or trend data in the petition or in our 
files that would enable us to determine whether the potential threat 
from grazing as described in the petition may be a threat to the 
species' existence. At present we have no evidence to suggest that the 
abundance or distribution of either species has been curtailed in any 
way. We have no available substantial information, and the petition 
presents none, to suggest that grazing may be a threat of such 
significance as to potentially threaten the straight snowfly or Idaho 
snowfly with extinction, now or within the foreseeable future.

Recreation

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition asserts that recreation threatens habitat conditions 
and water quality requirements for the straight and Idaho snowflies on 
both State and Federal lands where they have been collected in the past 
(Petition, p. 15). According to the petition, the Palouse Ranger 
District is the most heavily visited district within the Clearwater 
National Forest, with three campgrounds and over 90 mi (145 km) of 
trails located in close proximity to the population centers of Moscow 
and Lewiston, Idaho (Petition, p. 15). Recreational activities on the 
Palouse Ranger District cited in the petition include hiking, biking, 
camping, fishing, and hunting, with increasing rates of off-highway 
vehicle (OHV) recreation, including cross-country travel and user-
created trails (Petition, p. 15; USDA in litt. 2009, p. 1). Petitioner-
cited OHV-specific effects on the Clearwater National Forest include 
vegetation loss, unsightly scars, soil erosion, and stream degradation 
(e.g., devegetation, destruction of fragile banks, and increased 
siltation; USDA in litt. 2009, p. 1).
    Little Boulder Creek campground, a popular developed campground and 
recreation area, and the site of collections for both snowflies in 1985 
(Petition, pp. 31, 33), is cited in the petition as having adversely 
affected habitat due to erosion from foot, bike, car, and OHV traffic; 
runoff of pollutants from roads and trails; introduction of bacteria 
and excess nutrients from dog waste; trampling of streamside vegetation 
by recreationists; and the construction and maintenance of stream 
crossings and culverts that can interrupt stream flow, generate 
additional sedimentation and siltation in waterways, and pose barriers 
to dispersal by the snowflies (Petition, pp. 15-16).
    The Spring Valley Reservoir, which is managed by IDFG, is another 
recreation area cited by the petitioners as negatively affecting 
habitat suitability for both snowfly species. This reservoir and 
campsite is located just above Spring Valley Creek, which is the site 
of two documented locations for both the straight and Idaho snowflies 
(Petition, p. 16). The petition asserts that reservoir operations aimed 
at increasing summer recreation opportunities have altered the natural 
hydrology of Spring Valley Creek below the reservoir. They claim that 
retaining spring run-off until fall, when it is released from the 
reservoir, affects habitat suitability for both snowfly species by 
increasing summer water temperatures in the creek (Petition, p. 16). 
According to the petition, riparian areas along the section of Spring 
Valley Creek below the reservoir are compromised by dam rip-rap and a 
road, which could further elevate water temperatures via loss of 
shading vegetation along the creek (Petition, p. 16).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    The petition states that the Palouse Ranger District is the most 
heavily visited district on the Clearwater National Forest; although 
the document that the petitioners cited supporting this claim was not 
provided to the Service for our review, we were unable to find it 
ourselves. Although we do not dispute that recreational use is 
occurring within the range of the two snowfly species, it is unclear 
from the petition or information available in our files what specific 
effects recreational use at the three campgrounds and over 90 mi (145 
km) of trails cited by petitioners may be having on the two snowflies 
or their aquatic habitats. The petition offers a list of various 
impacts that could potentially be associated with recreational 
activities, but provides no evidence that such impacts are actually 
occurring, or that they are occurring at a level that may impact the 
two snowfly species. Although recreational use may have some effect on 
the snowflies or their habitats, we have no data to suggest or quantify 
these potential threats to the species. We have no available 
substantial information, and the petition provides none, to suggest 
that any possible effects from recreational usage of campgrounds or 
trails may rise to the level of threatening the continued existence of 
either the straight or Idaho snowfly.
    The increase of OHV use on the Clearwater National Forest and the 
effects of that use on the landscape are specifically cited and 
supported in the petition (Petition, p. 15; USDA in litt. 2009, p. 1). 
However, the information provided is at the level of the entire 
National Forest, and does not identify the level of OHV use that is 
occurring

[[Page 46246]]

at sites where straight or Idaho snowflies have been documented. The 
petition provides no information, and we have none available in our 
files, to suggest that the abundance or distribution of either snowfly 
species has been curtailed within the Clearwater National Forest. The 
Clearwater National Forest is presently undertaking its Travel Plan and 
OHV Rule Implementation process under the National Travel Rule (70 FR 
68264; November 9, 2005), with expected implementation sometime in 2011 
(USDA in litt. 2010a, p. 3). The National Travel Rule requires National 
Forests to formally designate roads, trails, and areas where summer 
motorized travel is permitted and to show them on a Motor Vehicle Use 
Map (MVUM). Once the Clearwater National Forest Travel Plan is 
implemented, motorized travel will be permitted only on the roads, 
trails, and areas shown on the MVUM (USDA in litt. 2009, p. 1), and 
therefore OHV use will be better regulated and impacts should be 
reduced within the Clearwater National Forest. At present, however, the 
petition does not provide information, and we have none available in 
our files, to suggest that any possible effects from OHV use in the 
Clearwater National Forest may rise to the level of threatening the 
continued existence of either the straight or Idaho snowfly.
    While the petition asserts that Little Boulder Creek campground 
negatively affects the straight and Idaho snowflies' aquatic habitat, 
the petition only summarizes campground conditions, demands, and 
associated recreational uses. We have no information available in our 
files, and the petition offers none, to suggest that activities 
associated with campgrounds may pose a significant threat to the 
existence of the two species. Without more specific information 
regarding how these campground conditions and associated activities may 
be directly impacting the two snowfly species or their aquatic habitat, 
we cannot evaluate the Little Boulder Creek campground as a threat to 
the straight or Idaho snowfly.
    The petition claims that Spring Valley Creek reservoir operations 
alter the natural hydrology of Spring Valley Creek below the dam by 
retaining spring run-off until it is released from the reservoir in the 
fall. We agree that these reservoir operations may negatively affect 
Spring Valley Creek stream conditions below the dam's outflow, but we 
have no data that verify that the resulting stream conditions may be a 
threat to the two snowfly species. Although the petition states that 
warmer water temperatures in summer are likely as a result of reservoir 
operations, the petition offers no data or support for this assertion, 
and provides no information as to the potential consequences for the 
two snowfly species. At present we have no evidence to suggest that the 
abundance or distribution of the two snowfly species has been curtailed 
in Spring Valley Creek. Information in the petition or in our files is 
not sufficient to suggest that there are any specific effects from 
reservoir operations on either snowfly species, as no information is 
presented to demonstrate any negative response by either snowfly 
population. We therefore do not have substantial information to suggest 
that any possible effects from operation of the Spring Valley Reservoir 
may rise to the level of threatening the continued existence of either 
the straight or Idaho snowfly.
    Most of the information presented in the petition regarding 
recreation is general in nature regarding the effects on streams and 
aquatic habitats, and is not specific to the aquatic habitat for the 
straight or Idaho snowflies. Additionally, because there have been no 
known surveys for the straight or Idaho snowfly since 1989, we could 
find no current population size, distribution, or trend data in the 
petition or in our files that would enable us to determine whether the 
potential threat from recreation as described in the petition may be a 
threat to the species' existence. At this time we have no evidence to 
suggest that the abundance or distribution of either snowfly species 
has been curtailed in any way. We have no available substantial 
information, and the petition presents none, to suggest that recreation 
may be a threat of such significance as to potentially threaten the 
straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly with extinction, now or within the 
foreseeable future.

Development

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition states that within the city limits of Moscow, Idaho, 
the continued survival of both species is doubtful due to habitat 
degradation of streams within the city limits (Petition, p. 16). Both 
the straight and Idaho snowflies were previously collected in Moscow, 
although specific stream locations were not identified. Moscow, along 
with the cities of Troy, Deary, and Bovill, are all within the range of 
the snowflies, and all four are cited as growing in human population 
(Petition, p. 16; Latah County Comprehensive Plan 2004, p. 9; U.S. 
Census Bureau in litt. 2009, entire). Each of these growing cities 
operates a Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) that discharges effluent 
to a river or tributary where one or both snowfly species have been 
previously collected (Petition, p. 16; IDEQ 2008, p. 55).
    The petitioners state that the city of Troy's WWTP discharges into 
the West Fork Little Bear Creek (near a historical collection site for 
the straight snowfly), which is documented to have excessive plant 
growth due to nutrient overloading, elevated temperatures, and bacteria 
levels (Petition, pp. 16-17; IDEQ 2008, p. xxvi). The petitioners 
further state that this creek suffers from declining dissolved oxygen 
levels, presumably caused from effluent discharged from the city of 
Troy's WWTP (Petition, p. 17; IDEQ 2008, p. 75). The city of Deary 
discharges waste from a WWTP into Mount Deary Creek, a tributary to a 
Clean Water Act's section 303(d)-listed Big Bear Creek, where the 
straight snowfly was collected in 1967 (Petition, pp. 17, 31; IDEQ 
2008, p. xxv). The city of Bovill releases effluent from a WWTP into 
the Potlatch River, also a Clean Water Act's section 303(d)-listed 
stream, just upstream from a ``cluster of sites'' where both snowfly 
species were collected (Petition, p. 17; IDEQ 2008, pp. xxiv-xxv). 
Within the Palouse River watershed, the Syringa Mobile Home Park is 
cited by the petitioners as discharging effluent into the South Fork 
Palouse River near one historical location for the straight snowfly 
(Petition, p. 17). This section of the South Fork Palouse River is 
cited by petitioners as not meeting water quality standards to fully 
support aquatic life due to elevated sediment, nutrients, temperature, 
and bacteria (Petition, p. 17; IDEQ 2007, p. xvii).
    The petition states that roadways and other impervious surfaces 
have also affected the Palouse and Potlatch watersheds due to 
increasing sedimentation in streams from overland water flow and road 
maintenance activities (Petition, p. 17). The petition also implicates 
dispersing accumulated contaminants (such as brake dust, heavy metals, 
and organic pollutants) into streams as a threat to these two species 
(Petition, p. 17). Also, as previously mentioned, forest and smaller 
access roads are cited by petitioners as increasing the rate of erosion 
and sedimentation into streams (Petition, p. 17; Gucinski et al. 2001, 
pp. 12-15). Lastly, roads are cited as creating barriers to the 
movement of the straight and Idaho snowflies (Petition, p. 17); we 
evaluate those threats below under ``Barriers to Dispersal.''
    The petitioners refer to the increasing use of anti-icing road 
salts within the range of the straight and Idaho snowflies

[[Page 46247]]

as having detrimental effects on aquatic organisms due to their 
toxicity and movement from roadways into nearby streams and rivers 
(Petition, p. 17; Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) in litt. 2004, 
entire; Kegley et al. in litt. 2009c, entire). Magnesium chloride 
(MgCl2), the primary liquid de-icing agent used by ITD on 
Idaho State roadways (Petition, p. 17), has been cited by the 
petitioners as having lethal and sublethal effects on aquatic insects 
such as water fleas (Daphnia and Ceriodaphnia spp.; Kegley et al. 
2009c, p. 4; Lewis 1999, pp. 28-33). In addition, the petitioners state 
that MgCl2 has also been shown to affect riparian vegetation 
by stunting overall growth and decreasing leaf cover, making it 
problematic for stream temperatures to remain cool during late summer 
when stream flows are low, thereby affecting habitat requirements for 
the snowflies (Petition, p. 18).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    While streams within the city limits of Moscow, Idaho, may be 
degraded, information was not presented in the petition, and is not 
available in our files, to suggest the decline or absence of the 
straight or Idaho snowfly in those streams as a consequence. We 
acknowledge the WWTPs in the Idaho cities of Troy, Deary, and Bovill, 
along with the Syringa Mobile Home Park, discharge effluent into water 
quality-impaired streams with documented straight and Idaho snowfly 
collections. We also agree that sedimentation and contaminants from 
roadways, such as brake dust and MgCl2, may negatively 
affect water quality and aquatic organisms within the range of the 
straight and Idaho snowflies. However, it is unclear from the 
information provided in the petition or in our files what level of 
impact, if any, the discharge of effluent or sedimentation and 
contaminants may have on the two species of snowflies. In addition, we 
could find no reliable population size or trend data for the two 
snowflies in the petition or in our files that would enable us to 
determine whether these activities may be threatening the species' 
existence, as the last known collections or surveys for either the 
straight or Idaho snowfly in these areas were conducted more than 20 
years ago. We therefore have no substantial information available to 
us, and the petition presents none, to suggest that development may be 
a threat of such significance as to potentially threaten the straight 
snowfly or Idaho snowfly with extinction, now or within the foreseeable 
future.

Barriers to Dispersal

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition asserts that roadways and currently impaired habitat 
conditions within the Potlatch River watershed, including elevated 
water temperature, sediment, and nutrient levels, may be limiting the 
snowflies' ability to colonize or re-colonize suitable habitat, 
therefore confining their known range to a smaller set of creeks than 
they historically occupied (Petition, p. 18).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    The information presented in the petition regarding barriers to 
dispersal is related to generalized effects of roadways and impaired 
habitat conditions on streams, aquatic habitats, and certain aquatic 
macroinvertebrates; the petition does not present any information 
specific to the straight or Idaho snowflies. Additionally, we could 
find no reliable population size or trend data in the petition or in 
our files for the two snowflies that would allow us to determine 
whether barriers to dispersal may threaten the snowflies' continued 
existence. The last known collections or surveys for either the 
straight or Idaho snowfly were in 1989, and we have no evidence to 
suggest that the abundance or distribution of either species has been 
curtailed in any way. We therefore have no substantial information 
available to us, and the petition presents none, to suggest that 
barriers to dispersal may be a threat of such significance as to 
potentially threaten the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly with 
extinction, now or within the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor A
    The petition presents a detailed account of various activities 
occurring within the range of the straight snowfly and Idaho snowfly 
that may have generalized negative impacts on environmental quality of 
aquatic habitats. However, the petition does not present any 
information that correlates the status of the two snowfly species with 
any of the threats cited. Further, the petition does not provide any 
data to suggest that either of the species have declined in abundance 
or suffered any reduction in range in response to any of the cited 
general threats. The species were last collected in the 1980s, and we 
are unaware of any attempts to survey for either species since that 
time. We could find no reliable population size, distribution, or trend 
data for either the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly in the petition 
or in our files that would lead us to conclude that the potential 
threats considered under Factor A may be a threat to the species' 
continued existence. In addition, as the total range occupied by 
straight and Idaho snowfly populations in Idaho has never been 
documented, no reduction in snowfly range can be determined. We found 
very little data, in the petition or in our files, directly related to 
the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly indicating the extent of any 
impact to their populations.
    In summary, we could find no information in the petition or in our 
files that would be sufficient to lead a reasonable person to conclude 
that the petitioned action may be warranted due to the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the habitat or 
range of the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly, as there is no 
information to suggest that either of these species may meet the 
definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act. 
Overall, the petition's claims are not supported by the information 
available. Consequently, we conclude that the petition does not present 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that 
listing either the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly may be warranted 
based on the present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition does not present information, and we do not have any 
information in our files, suggesting that overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes may be a 
threat to either the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly. Consequently, 
we conclude that the petition does not present substantial scientific 
or commercial information indicating that listing either the straight 
snowfly or Idaho snowfly may be warranted based on overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.

C. Disease or Predation

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition does not identify disease or predation as a potential 
threat to either the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly at this time. 
The petition does state that even though threats from disease or 
predation have never been assessed for these two species, the rarity

[[Page 46248]]

of these species and their confined ranges makes them more vulnerable 
to extinction as a result of normal population fluctuations resulting 
from disease or predation (Petition, p. 19). The petitioners did not 
offer any supporting documentation for these statements, but referred 
to their discussion under Factor E regarding the alleged rarity of the 
species.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    The petition asserts that since both snowfly species are rare and 
have confined ranges, they are more vulnerable to extinction as a 
result of normal population fluctuations resulting from predation or 
disease. However, in order to determine that there is substantial 
information that a species may be endangered or threatened, we have to 
determine that the species actually may be subject to specific 
significant threats. Although we agree that species with restricted 
ranges and small populations may be more vulnerable to potential 
threats, broad statements about generalized threats to rare species do 
not independently constitute substantial information that listing may 
be warranted. Moreover, as detailed in the section below on Small 
Population Size and Stochastic Events under Factor E, the limited 
survey data available are insufficient to determine whether these 
snowfly species are, in fact, rare. We could find no information in the 
petition or in our files suggesting any impact to either species from 
disease or predation, or in any way linking the status of the straight 
snowfly or Idaho snowfly to disease or predation. Consequently, we 
conclude that the petition does not present substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating that listing either the straight 
snowfly or Idaho snowfly may be warranted based on disease or 
predation.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition asserts that the straight and Idaho snowflies 
currently receive no recognition or protection under Federal or State 
law. The petition also states that both species are considered 
critically imperiled by IDFG's Conservation Data Center (now called the 
Idaho Natural Heritage Program). In addition, the petition states that 
both species are considered species of concern by the U.S. Forest 
Service, but that this designation has not resulted in the species 
being taken into consideration in the assessment of the environmental 
impacts of management actions (Petition, p. 19). While the petitioners 
claim that the straight and Idaho snowfly do not receive recognition or 
protection under Federal or State law, they do not identify any 
specific threats to either species, besides ``land management 
activities within the Clearwater National Forest administrative 
boundary,'' as a result of this lack of recognition or protection for 
these species (Petition, p. 19).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    Both the straight and Idaho snowflies are classified as 
``critically imperiled'' by the Idaho Conservation Data Center (IDFG 
2005, pp. 582-584), although the reasoning for this designation is the 
``lack of essential information pertaining to status'' and ``no 
population trend data'' (which is because neither species has been 
collected since 1989, nor, according to the petition, have any targeted 
surveys for these species been conducted since then). The recommended 
actions for both species cited in IDFG (2005, pp. 582-584) are ``field 
surveys are needed to determine the distribution and habitat needs of 
this species.'' We were unable to find information in the petition, 
supporting documentation, or in our files that confirmed that both 
species are considered species of concern by the U.S. Forest Service 
(IDFG 2005, pp. 582-584). While they are considered species of concern 
in the draft Clearwater-Nez Perce National Forest Plan (USDA 2007, p. 
4), this plan has not been finalized (USDA in litt. 2010a, p. 2).
    Information in our files, but not mentioned in the petition, 
indicates that both species are considered Species of Greatest 
Conservation Need by the IDFG (IDFG 2005, pp. 582-584). This level of 
recognition by the State provides a common framework that enables 
conservation partners, including Federal, tribal agencies, and local 
government agencies, and private landowners, to jointly implement a 
long-term approach for the benefit of both snowfly species (IDFG 2005, 
p. v). Species of Greatest Conservation Need recognition also extends 
some level of consideration under State, Federal, and local government 
laws when project impacts are reviewed, such as for stormwater 
pollution prevention plans.
    We found the petition to be correct in that there are no existing 
regulatory mechanisms for the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly. We 
could not determine the existence of any threats the snowflies may 
face, now or in the foreseeable future, that would indicate a need for 
protective regulatory mechanisms. Because minimal information exists 
concerning the population size, trends, habitat needs, and limiting 
factors for both snowfly species, we have no substantial information to 
suggest that the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms may pose 
a threat to the continued existence of these species. In addition, as 
noted above in Factor B and in the petition (p. 18), the straight and 
Idaho snowflies are not considered a commercial species, and are not at 
risk of overcollection. We therefore have no data related to the 
straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly indicating any impact to either of 
these species due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms 
so as to potentially threaten the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly 
with extinction, now or within the foreseeable future. Consequently, we 
conclude that the petition does not present substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating that listing either the straight 
snowfly or Idaho snowfly may be warranted based on the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued 
Existence

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

Small Population Size and Stochastic Events

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition describes the straight and Idaho snowflies as weak 
fliers, with a limited dispersal potential that is decreased even 
further by habitat disturbance (Petition, p. 19). According to the 
petition, the population size of each of the species is unknown, but 
presumably small, as no more than 89 individuals have ever been 
reported from a single site, and most collections had fewer 
individuals. The petition further states that smaller and fragmented 
populations are generally at greater risk of extinction due to 
predation, disease, and changing food supply, as well as from natural 
disasters such as floods or droughts. Further, the loss of genetic 
variability and reduced fitness due to inbreeding is also a concern for 
small populations (Petition, p. 19).

[[Page 46249]]

Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    The petitioners assert that the straight and Idaho snowflies 
consist of small, isolated populations with restricted distributions, 
and this condition, in conjunction with other threats to the species, 
places them in imminent danger of extinction (Petition, p. 1). 
According to the petition, the straight snowfly was last surveyed in 
1989, and the Idaho snowfly was last surveyed in 1985. Therefore, these 
surveys occurred more than 20 years ago. The petitioners presume that 
population sizes for the species are small, based on the maximum number 
of individuals historically collected from a single site (Petition, p. 
7). We do not agree with the petitioners that the number of individuals 
in past collections is in any way reflective of total population size 
(Petition, p. 7). The number of individuals collected at any one time 
in the past would have been dependent upon the methods and purpose of 
that particular collection attempt, and cannot be assumed to be 
indicative of total population size. There are not sufficient data to 
reasonably estimate the size of populations of either of the two 
snowfly species, either historically or at the present time. In 
addition, it is not clear from the information provided in the petition 
or available in our files whether the currently recognized range of 
either species has been established through past targeted search 
efforts or from incidental collections. According to the information 
provided in the petition, no systematic surveys have been conducted for 
either of the snowfly species in recent years (Petition, p. 7), and we 
have no additional information available to us. We therefore do not 
have sufficient information to suggest that the rangewide distribution, 
either historical or current, of either species is known.
    We recognize the inherent vulnerabilities of species with small 
populations and restricted geographic ranges, and agree with the 
petitioners that small populations are generally at greater risk of 
extinction from deterministic threats or stochastic processes than 
large populations. However, we do not consider a small population or 
naturally restricted distribution alone to be a threat to species; 
rather, these factors can be a vulnerability that may render the 
species more susceptible to other threats, if they are present. Even if 
we assume that the populations of the straight snowfly and Idaho 
snowfly are small and restricted in range, based on the best available 
information, we have no indication that other natural or anthropogenic 
factors are likely to significantly threaten the existence of these 
species. And again, at this point in time, we have no evidence to 
suggest that the population abundance or distribution of either species 
has been curtailed in any way.
    In order to determine that there is substantial information that a 
species may be endangered or threatened, we have to determine that the 
species may actually be subject to specific significant threats; broad 
statements about generalized threats to rare species do not 
independently constitute substantial information that listing may be 
warranted. The petition does not provide, nor do we have in our files, 
information specific to the vulnerability of the straight or Idaho 
snowfly to stochastic events either now or in the foreseeable future. 
Furthermore, known collection surveys for both snowflies were last 
conducted more than 20 years ago, so the current distribution and 
population size of the straight or Idaho snowflies are unknown. The 
petition presents no information, and we have none available in our 
files, to suggest that the populations of either the straight snowfly 
or the Idaho snowfly are unnaturally small or fragmented. Consequently, 
in the absence of current distribution and population information, as 
well as the lack of information identifying specific threats to the 
species and linking those threats to the rarity of the species, we do 
not consider small population sizes and stochastic events alone to be 
threats for these species. We have no available substantial 
information, and the petition presents none, to suggest that small 
population size and stochastic events may be a threat of such 
significance as to potentially threaten the straight snowfly or Idaho 
snowfly with extinction, now or within the foreseeable future.

Global Climate Change

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition asserts that global climate change is a threat to the 
straight and Idaho snowflies. According to the petition, a temperature 
rise since the 1950s has shifted snowmelt more than 20 days earlier in 
the Latah County area, and has decreased snow pack 30 to 45 percent in 
the headwaters of the Potlatch River. The petition also reports that 
studies predict that snow packs will be reduced by up to 60 percent in 
some regions of the West, which, in turn, is expected to reduce 
summertime flows in the next 50 years by 20 to 50 percent (Petition, 
pp. 19-20).
    According to the petition, the snowfly life cycle, in contrast to 
many aquatic organisms, is more constrained by warm than cold water 
temperatures (Petition, p. 20). The petition asserts that the effects 
of climate change on the nymph stage could include: (1) Nymphs 
remaining in diapause longer to avoid warm stream temperatures, 
reducing their period of active feeding and growth; and (2) nymphs 
exiting diapause into water temperatures that are too warm for their 
survival (Petition, p. 20). However, the petition does not provide any 
support for these statements. Citing one study of two stonefly species 
in the genus AlloCapnia, the petition claims that remaining in diapause 
longer to escape warmer weather conditions may not provide refugia for 
nymphs because study results indicate that increased depth in the 
hyporheic zone did not result in decreased temperatures (Petition, p. 
20; McNutt 2003, p. 43). Two studies cited by petitioners showed that: 
(1) Species-specific stream temperature ranges for stonefly egg and 
nymph development have been documented in a study of Fennoscandian 
species (Petition, p. 20; Lillehammer et al. 1989, entire); and (2) 
another Capnia species (Capnia bifrons) failed to survive or have 
successful egg and nymph development above certain water temperature 
limits (Petition, p. 20; Elliot 1986, entire).
    The petition states that the adult stonefly stage is also expected 
to suffer as a result of a warming climate due to: (1) Untimely 
emergence of adults that are not appropriate for mating and egg 
maturation; and (2) impaired stonefly physiological conditions 
resulting in reduced fertility and fecundity (Petition, p. 20). The 
petition claims that intensifying climatic shifts in this region pose 
serious threats to the straight and Idaho snowflies, largely via 
reductions in the availability and suitability of their thermal habitat 
(Petition, p. 20).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    It is possible that climate change could pose a threat to the 
straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly if water levels, water temperature, 
or other habitat variables that affect the snowflies change 
significantly within the foreseeable future as a result. However, the 
petition has presented no information, and we have none available in 
our files, specific to the level of water flow or the thermal 
environment required by either the

[[Page 46250]]

straight snowfly or the Idaho snowfly. The petitioners cite to the 
studies of Lillehammer et al. (1989, entire) and Elliot (1986, entire) 
in support of documentation of species-specific temperature ranges for 
successful stonefly egg and nymph development. However, these studies 
provide no information specific to either the straight snowfly or Idaho 
snowfly. Although stoneflies in general are considered cool-water 
species, the study of Lillehammer et al. (1989, p. 179) concludes that 
``the characteristics of egg development in the Plecoptera, especially 
with respect to water temperature, show considerable variation.'' Based 
on this observed variation, it is likely not appropriate to use other 
stonefly species as surrogates to inform us as to the specific habitat 
requirements of the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly. The temperature 
range for successful egg and nymph development for the straight and 
Idaho snowflies is therefore unknown, as are temperatures tolerated by 
adults of either species.
    There are currently no models available that predict potential 
climate change effects at a localized scale sufficient to ascertain the 
likely magnitude of water temperature changes that might be experienced 
within the range of the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly. Because what 
may constitute suitable thermal habitat for the species is also 
unknown, it is not possible to determine whether the effects of climate 
change may become a significant threat to these species.
    The information presented in the petition regarding climate change 
is related to generalized effects on water flow and temperature; the 
petition does not present any information specific to the straight or 
Idaho snowflies or their habitat. The petition provides no specific 
information, and we have none available in our files, to support the 
statement that reductions in the availability or suitability of thermal 
habitat for the two snowflies may occur as a result of climate change, 
and if so, pose a serious threat. The petition presents no information, 
and we have none available in our files, describing the habitat 
requirements of either the straight snowfly or the Idaho snowfly. Given 
the lack of current population and abundance information for either 
species, coupled with the limited ability of current models to 
ascertain whether climate change may be, or may become, a threat to 
these species, the petition fails to present substantial information to 
suggest that the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly may be threatened 
with extinction due to global climate change. We have no available 
substantial information, and the petition presents none, to suggest 
that global climate change may be a threat of such significance as to 
potentially threaten the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly with 
extinction, now or within the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor E
    The petition claims the populations of the straight snowfly and 
Idaho snowfly are small and fragmented, and consequently at risk of 
extinction from stochastic events. However, based on the information 
presented in the petition and in our files, the population sizes, both 
historical and current, for the straight snowfly and the Idaho snowfly 
are unknown. As there have been no surveys or collections of either 
species since the 1980s, there is no evidence to suggest that the 
distribution of either species has changed. In addition, although the 
petition presumes that the populations of both species are small and 
fragmented, there is no evidence to support this assertion.
    Even if populations of the straight snowfly and Idaho snowfly were 
assumed to be small, we do not consider small population size, in and 
of itself, to constitute a threat. We agree that small population size 
may render a species more vulnerable to threats, if threats are 
present. However, in the case of the straight snowfly and Idaho 
snowfly, we have no indication that other factors may pose a 
significant threat to the existence of either species. Because we lack 
information identifying specific threats to the species and linking 
those threats to the rarity of the species, we conclude that there is 
no substantial information to suggest that small population size and 
stochastic events may be a threat.
    The petition additionally proposes that global climate change poses 
a serious threat to the two snowflies, primarily due to reductions in 
the availability and suitability of their thermal habitat. However the 
petition presents no information, and we have none available in our 
files, describing the specific habitat requirements of either the 
straight snowfly or the Idaho snowfly. In addition, there are currently 
no models available that predict potential climate change effects at a 
localized scale sufficient to ascertain the likely magnitude of 
temperature changes that might be experienced within the range of the 
straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly. The petition provides no specific 
information, and we have none available in our files, to support the 
statement that reductions in the availability or suitability of thermal 
habitat for the two snowflies as a result of climate change pose a 
serious threat.
    In summary, we could find no information in the petition or in our 
files that would be sufficient to lead a reasonable person to conclude 
the petitioned action may be warranted due to small population size or 
global climate change. The petition's claims are not supported by the 
information available. Consequently, we conclude that the petition does 
not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating 
that listing either the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly may be 
warranted based on other natural or manmade factors affecting the 
existence of the species, now or in the foreseeable future.

Finding

    In evaluating a petition under the Act, the Secretary must make a 
finding as to whether the petition ``presents substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be 
warranted.'' Furthermore, as stated earlier, our regulatory standard 
for substantial information is ``that amount of information that would 
lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the 
petition may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)(1)). Therefore, in 
evaluating the petition to list the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly 
as endangered or threatened under the Act, we must determine whether 
the petition presents substantial information indicating that the 
threats acting on the species may be so significant that the species 
may consequently be in danger of extinction at the present time 
(endangered), or likely to become so within the foreseeable future 
(threatened).
    All species face some level of threat. In order to determine that 
there is substantial information that the species may be in danger of 
extinction now or in the foreseeable future, the available information 
must go beyond the identification of presumptive threats and should 
reasonably suggest that there are operative threats acting on the 
species to the point that it may warrant protection under the Act. The 
Service's Endangered Species Petition Management and Guidance (U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service 1996, 
p. 8) states ``Petition findings need to be rooted in the here-and-now 
of a species' current status and whatever trends can be confidently 
discerned.'' Information regarding the range, distribution, population 
size, and status of the two snowflies is dated (more than 20 years old) 
and very limited, which prevents

[[Page 46251]]

any reasonable assessment of current or historical distribution, 
population size, or trends. In addition, the petitioners do not provide 
information, and we have none available in our files, indicating that 
the range or abundance of the snowflies has been curtailed.
    Although the petition provides an inventory of various activities 
or elements that may pose potential threats to the straight snowfly or 
the Idaho snowfly, as data on their current population distribution, 
abundance, and trend are completely lacking, and there is no evidence 
that either species has suffered any population decline or reduction in 
range, the petitioners' conclusion that both species ``are in imminent 
danger of extinction'' (Petition, p. 5) appears to be purely 
speculative. We have limited or no data on the actual exposure of the 
straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly to the purported threats, or whether 
that exposure, should it occur, would cause a negative population 
response, let alone result in the present or threatened endangerment of 
the species. All available threat information presented is generalized 
in nature, and both the NatureServe accounts and the IDFG Comprehensive 
Wildlife Conservation Strategy concede that ``specific threats to Idaho 
populations have not been identified'' (IDFG 2005, pp. 592-584; 
NatureServe 2010a, p. 2; NatureServe 2010b, p. 1). While we may agree 
with the petition's description of impaired aquatic habitat conditions 
within the range of these two species, we simply have no information to 
link the effect of these conditions with the snowfly populations. 
Therefore the petition lacks substantial information to indicate the 
threats listed in the petition are significantly impacting the straight 
snowfly or Idaho snowfly or threatening their continued existence. 
Based on the information presented in the petition and available in our 
files, we have no evidence to suggest that threats may be acting on 
either the straight snowfly or the Idaho snowfly such that either 
species may currently be in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
within the foreseeable future. Therefore, we conclude that a reasonable 
person would not believe that the measure proposed in the petition may 
be warranted.
    On the basis of our determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the 
Act, we find the petition does not present substantial scientific or 
commercial information to indicate that listing either the straight 
snowfly or Idaho snowfly as endangered or threatened under the Act is 
warranted at this time. Although we will not review the status of these 
species at this time, we encourage interested parties to continue to 
gather data that will assist with the conservation of the straight 
snowfly and Idaho snowfly. If you wish to provide information regarding 
the straight snowfly or Idaho snowfly you may submit your information 
or materials to the State Supervisor, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office 
(see ADDRESSES), at any time.

References Cited

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

Authors

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

Authority

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

    Dated: July 21, 2011.
Gregory E. Siekaniec,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-19445 Filed 8-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P