Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Spring Pygmy Sunfish as Endangered, 18138-18143 [2011-7691]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 63 (Friday, April 1, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18138-18143]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7691]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2010-0084; [MO 92210-0-0008-B2]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on 
a Petition To List the Spring Pygmy Sunfish as Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a 90-day 
finding on a petition to list the spring pygmy sunfish (Elassoma 
alabamae) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act). Based on our review, we find that the petition and 
information currently available in our files presents substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing this 
species may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this 
notice, we are initiating a review of the status of the species to 
determine if the petitioned action is warranted. To ensure this status 
review is comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial 
data and other information regarding this species. Based on the status 
review, we will issue a 12-month finding on the petition, which will 
address whether the petitioned action is warranted, as provided in 
section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.

DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request 
that we receive information on or before May 31, 2011. Please note that 
if you are using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, 
below), the deadline for submitting an electronic comment is 11:59 p.m. 
Eastern Time on this date. After May 31, 2011, you must submit 
information directly to the Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section below). Please note that we might not be able to 
address or incorporate information that we receive after the above 
requested date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In 
the box that reads ``Enter Keyword or ID,'' enter the Docket number for 
this finding, which is FWS-R4-ES-2010-0084. Check the box that reads 
``Open for Comment/Submission,'' and then click the Search button. You 
should then see an icon that reads ``Submit a Comment.'' Please ensure 
that you have found the correct document before submitting your 
comment.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2010-0084; Division of Policy and Directives 
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all information we 
receive on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov. This generally 
means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see 
the Request for Information section below for more details).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor, 
Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office, 6578 Dogwood View 
Parkway, Jackson, MS 39213; by telephone (601-321-1122); or by 
facsimile (601-965-4340). If you use a telecommunications

[[Page 18139]]

device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay 
Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Information

    When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial 
information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are 
required to promptly review the status of the species (status review). 
For the status review to be complete and based on the best available 
scientific and commercial information, we request information on the 
spring pygmy sunfish from governmental agencies, Native American 
Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested 
parties. We seek information on:
    (1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
    (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
    (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends; and
    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its 
habitat, or both.
    (2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing/delisting/
downlisting determination for a species under section 4(a) of the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), which are:
    (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (c) Disease or predation;
    (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    If, after the status review, we determine that listing the spring 
pygmy sunfish is warranted, we will propose critical habitat (see 
definition in section 3(5)(A) of the Act), under section 4 of the Act, 
to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time we propose 
to list the species. Therefore, within the geographical range currently 
occupied by the spring pygmy sunfish, we request data and information 
on:
    (1) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species'';
    (2) Where these features are currently found; and
    (3) Whether any of these features may require special management 
considerations or protection.
    In addition, we request data and information on ``specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species'' that are 
``essential to the conservation of the species.'' Please provide 
specific comments and information as to what, if any, critical habitat 
you think we should propose for designation if the species is proposed 
for listing, and why such habitat meets the requirements of section 4 
of the Act.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action 
under consideration without providing supporting information, although 
noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any 
species is an endangered or a threatened species must be made ``solely 
on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
    You may submit your information concerning this status review by 
one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit 
information via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--
including any personal identifying information--will be posted on the 
Web site. If you submit a hardcopy that includes personal identifying 
information, you may request at the top of your document that we 
withhold this personal identifying information from public review. 
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will 
post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Information and supporting documentation that we received and used 
in preparing this finding is available for you to review at https://www.regulations.gov, or you may make an appointment during normal 
business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi 
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) 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.
    The ``substantial information'' standard for a 90-day finding 
differs from the Act's ``best scientific and commercial data'' standard 
that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned 
action is warranted. A 90-day finding does not constitute a status 
review under the Act. In a 12-month finding, we will determine whether 
a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough 
status review of the species, which is conducted following a 
substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 
12-month findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-
day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a 
warranted finding.

Previous Federal Actions

    On November 29, 1977, we proposed to list the spring pygmy sunfish 
as endangered and to designate critical habitat (42 FR 60765). We 
withdrew the critical habitat portion of the proposal on March 6, 1979 
(44 FR 12382). We then proposed critical habitat again for the species 
on July 27, 1979 (44 FR 44418). On January 24, 1980, we withdrew the 
pending proposal to list the spring pygmy sunfish, along with the 
proposed critical habitat designation (effective November 29, 1979) (45 
FR 5782).
    The spring pygmy sunfish has been included in the following notices 
as a candidate species for listing: December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58454); 
September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37958); January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554); and 
November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982).
    On February 28, 1996 (61 FR 7457), the Service published a notice 
of review in the Federal Register that removed the spring pygmy sunfish 
from the proposed candidate list because of recent discoveries 
(particularly of the Pryor Springs population).

[[Page 18140]]

Petition History

    On November 24, 2009, we received a petition dated November 24, 
2009, from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and Michael Sandel 
of the University of Alabama, requesting that we list the spring pygmy 
sunfish (Elassoma alabamae) as endangered under the Act. The petition 
clearly identified itself as such and included the requested 
identification information for the petitioners as required by 50 CFR 
424.14(a). In a December 17, 2009, letter, we informed the petitioners 
that we had reviewed the information presented in the petition, and 
outlined the petition process and timelines. In July 2010, we received 
letters from the North American Native Fishes Association (NANFA) and 
Dr. Stallsmith (University of Alabama at Huntsville) requesting that we 
emergency list the species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act. Following 
review of the petition, the letters, and information in our files, we 
also determined that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily 
listing the species was not warranted. We notified NANFA and Dr. 
Stallsmith of our determination on July 21, 2010.

Species Information

    The spring pygmy sunfish (Elassoma alabamae) was discovered in 1938 
but was not described until 1993 (Mayden 1993, pp. 1-14). This species 
is the smallest member of the genus Elassoma. Males are normally 
smaller than females, and both sexes have 5 to 8 broad, dark vertical 
bars separated by light-colored, narrow bars. Males are very dark to 
black with iridescent blue green color on their sides, cheeks, and gill 
covers (Boschung and Mayden 2004, pp. 614-615).
    The spring pygmy sunfish is a spring-associated fish, endemic to 
the Tennessee River drainage in the Eastern Highland Rim physiographic 
province and Dissected Tablelands (Curtis et al. 1913, p. 53) of 
Lauderdale and Limestone Counties in northern Alabama. The single 
remaining population of the spring pygmy sunfish currently occupies 
about 5 river miles (mi) (8.05 river kilometers (km)) of shallow, 
vegetated areas within four spring pools confluent with the upper 
Beaver Dam Spring Complex. These spring pools include Moss, Beaverdam, 
Thorsen, and Horton Springs, all in Limestone County, Alabama. The 
species is thought to be extirpated in Pryor Springs (also in Limestone 
County).
    The spring pygmy sunfish was initially discovered in Cave Springs 
(Lauderdale County) in 1938, and extirpated about a year later due to 
inundation from the formation of Pickwick Reservoir. In 1941, the 
species was discovered in Pryor Springs (Limestone County). A series of 
geomorphic and contamination events over 30 years is believed to have 
attributed to the demise of the species in Pryor Springs and throughout 
the species' range--(Boschung and Mayden 2004, pp. 614-615). There are 
few documented sampling efforts in Pryor Springs between 1966 and 1979. 
However, collection information from this time period indicates a 
declining and almost extinct population, nearing extirpation. By 1984, 
an effort to re-establish the population of spring pygmy sunfish 
included transplanting the species from Moss Spring into Pryor Springs 
(Mettee et al. 1986, pp. 14-15). Reintroduction efforts continued in 
1985 and 1987 (Mettee et al. 1986, pp. 6-7); however, by 2007, the 
species was believed extirpated from Pryor Springs due to impaired 
water quality and quantity problems, most likely attributable to 
agriculture (Sandel 2008, p. 2).
    The preferred habitat for the spring pygmy sunfish is clear and 
colorless to slightly stained spring water, spring runs, and associated 
spring-fed wetlands (Warren 2004, pp. 184-185). Spring pool habitats 
are typically static, persisting without disturbance for long periods. 
The spring pygmy sunfish is highly localized within these spring pools, 
being found in the water column associated with patches of specific 
submergent vegetation. Spring pygmy sunfishes are generally found at 
water depths from 5 to 40 inches (in) (12.7 cm to 101.6 centimeters 
(cm)) and rarely in the upper 5 in (12.7 cm) of the water column. 
Spring pygmy sunfish abundance is correlated with specific water 
quantity and quality parameters (i.e., water flow velocity, turbidity, 
anoxic (lack of oxygen) substratum, and water temperatures) and certain 
associated species such as amphipods, isopods, spring salamanders, 
crayfish, and snails (Sandel, pers. comm., 2007). The spring pygmy 
sunfish has high fecundity and quickly populates areas of available 
habitat (Sandel, pers. obs., 2004 through 2009). Reproductively active 
adults occur from January to October. Spawning occurs in March and 
April, when water quality parameters are within a suitable range, such 
as a pH of 6.0 to 7.7 and water temperatures of 57.2 to 68 degrees 
Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (14 to 20 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)). Spring pygmy 
sunfish produce about 65 eggs, and hatching occurs from April to 
September (Sandel, pers. obs., 2004 through 2009).
    The species is most abundant at the spring emergence, and exhibits 
metapopulation (a group of spatially separated populations of the same 
species that have some interaction) structure by occupying all suitable 
spring habitats where there is flowing spring water. This suggests that 
the population in the Beaverdam Creek system is a single, structured, 
continuous group of breeding individuals, genetically identifiable with 
limited gene flow from each springhead subpopulation (Sandel 2008, pp. 
15-16).
    It is believed that migration between springheads is very important 
in maintaining genetic diversity of species within these small areas, 
although gene flow is limited. Even though individual subpopulations 
may be extirpated at times, due to drought or other ecological issues, 
the simultaneous loss of many subpopulations may cause extinction of 
the metapopulation.
    We accept the characterization of the spring pygmy sunfish as a 
valid species based on the taxonomic characters distinguishing the 
species from other members of the Elassoma genus (Mayden 1993, p. 4).

Evaluation of Information for This Finding

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 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 a threatened species due to one or more of the five 
factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information 
regarding threats to the spring pygmy sunfish, presented in the 
petition and available in our files, is substantial, thereby indicating 
that the petitioned action may be warranted. Our evaluation of this 
information is presented below.

[[Page 18141]]

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

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition states that decreased water quantity has degraded the 
spring pygmy sunfish's habitat (Warren et al. 2000; Warren 2004; 
Boschung and Mayden 2004) (cited in petition). Specifically, water from 
the aquifer of the Eastern Highland Rim located within the Tennessee 
River Catchment containing the entire Beaverdam Creek watershed is 
being withdrawn daily by the city of Huntsville and adjacent rural 
residents at a volume of 40 million gallons per day (MGD) (Compiled 
from NAWQA 2001, 2009; Sandel, pers. com, 2007).
    The petition states that this water withdrawal quantity is at least 
three times greater than the withdrawal volumes from the eight 
surrounding watersheds that remove at least 12 MGD. Groundwater 
extraction by agriculture from the springs (Thorsen Spring, Horton 
Spring, and Pryor Branch/Spring systems), with five diesel irrigation 
pumps operating simultaneously, withdraws 8,000 to 16,000 gallons per 
minute during drought conditions. In 2007, water from Thorsen Spring 
was extracted to a level that destroyed existing vegetation and 
decreased the abundance of the spring pygmy sunfish abundance by 99 
percent (Sandel, pers. obs., 2004 through 2007). Chronic regional 
drought between 2000 and 2005 reduced rates of surface water flow and 
aquifer recharge. Desiccation of aquatic vegetation by water removal 
(pumping) within Thorsen, Horton, and Pryor Springs negatively impacted 
the vegetation of the spring pygmy sunfish's habitat (Jandebeur 1979; 
Mayden 1993; as cited in the petition).
    The petition states that declining water quality is a major threat 
to the spring pygmy sunfish due to the use of fertilizers and other 
agricultural chemicals within the Beaverdam Creek watershed. According 
to the petition, the watershed contains about 14,016 acres (5672.28 ha) 
of row cropland that uses fertilizers and other chemicals, which is 
eventually transported at a runoff rate exceeding 25 MGD throughout the 
tributaries of the watershed.
    The petition states that removal of aquatic and riparian vegetation 
due to herbicide application is a major threat to the spring pygmy 
sunfish. Herbicide application and other methods of aquatic vegetation 
removal within Thorsen Spring, Horton Spring, and Pryor Branch/Spring 
systems have impacted the species' habitat (Jandebeur 1979; Mayden 
1993) (cited in petition).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    Data from our files support the petition's assertion that 
diminishing water quantity has the potential to be a significant threat 
to the spring pygmy sunfish. Increased urbanization within the entire 
Eastern Highland Rim topographic area (Woodside et al. 2001, p. 6) has 
increased water quantity usage throughout the Tennessee Valley Basin. 
Demand for water is correlated to projected population levels in 
Limestone and Lauderdale Counties. By 2015, the population in these 
counties is projected to increase dramatically (Roop 2010). Growing 
populations correspondingly increase demand for surface and ground 
water extraction within the Eastern Highland Rim. Currently about 40 
percent of the public water supply for the City of Huntsville is 
withdrawn from the Tennessee River and 40 percent from groundwater 
(Hoos et al. 2001, p. 1; Kingsbury 2003, p. 2).
    The information in our files regarding groundwater extraction for 
Lauderdale and Limestone Counties is limited to general watershed and 
county-level data (USGS 2009a; USGS 2009b; Hutson et al. 2005, pp. 1-
2). The petition only estimates the potential of eight pumps operating 
simultaneously within the spring pygmy sunfish's sites. Information in 
our files, along with field observations (Drennen, pers. obs., 2007 
through 2009), supports the petition's claim that water is being 
withdrawn from spring pygmy sunfish habitat for irrigation. However, 
the specific water quantity removed from these sites and the impact 
that this removal has on the spring pygmy sunfish is not substantiated, 
and we do not have supporting information within our files.
    Declining water quality information presented in the petition for 
the Eastern Highland Rim, in general, is supported by information found 
in our files. Specific site threats to the spring pygmy sunfish 
mentioned in the petition, such as excessive sediment, decreasing water 
clarity, decreasing spawning and feeding sites, reduction of light, and 
the use of fertilizers and pesticides, were identified by the petition 
as impacting the broad topographic region that includes the limited 
sites occupied by the spring pygmy sunfish. However, the significance 
of this general threat to the spring pygmy sunfish is unknown. 
Information in our files supports the petition's assertion that 
decreased water quality may be a threat to the spring pygmy sunfish.
    Information in the petition and in our files indicates that, since 
1945, various techniques for removing or limiting aquatic vegetation, 
such as herbicides, cattle grazing, and irrigation, have occurred 
within the spring systems and waterways throughout the habitat of the 
spring pygmy sunfish (Jandebeur 1979, pp. 4-8). The information in our 
files also supports the statement in the petition that manipulation and 
control of aquatic vegetation in the spring systems may be a threat to 
the spring pygmy sunfish.
    In summary, we find that the information provided in the petition, 
as well as other information in our files, presents substantial 
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted due 
to the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment 
of the species' habitat or range, specifically because of declining 
water quantity and quality and loss of aquatic vegetation.

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

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition states that overutilization has not been implicated in 
the decline of this species because monthly surveys over the last 5 
years for scientific evaluation were nonlethal. Previous lethal 
sampling of the spring pygmy sunfish within the various sites across 
the species' range for genetic work never constituted more than 10 
percent of the total individuals collected per sampling event. The 
petition states that there is no evidence to suggest over-exploitation 
as a cause for the decline of the spring pygmy sunfish.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    There is no evidence provided by the petition, or within our files, 
to support threats under this factor. Therefore, we find that the 
information provided in the petition, as well as other information in 
our files, does not indicate or document that overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes poses a 
threat to the species. However, we will evaluate all factors, including 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes, when we conduct the status review.

C. Disease or Predation

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition states that there is no evidence to suggest that 
disease is a

[[Page 18142]]

cause for the decline of the spring pygmy sunfish. However, the 
petition does state that chain pickerel (Esox nigra) prey on the spring 
pygmy sunfish (Jandebeur 1997, cited in petition), and that other types 
of pygmy sunfish species in different localities have been found in the 
gut contents of piscivorous (fish-eating) fishes (Walsh and Burr 1984, 
cited in petition). The petition states that invasive species, such as 
predators like pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus) and grass pickerel 
(Esox americanus), and potential competitors such as the flier 
(Centrarchus macropterus) and bantam sunfish (Lepomis symmetricus), 
threaten the spring pygmy sunfish.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    The information in our files supports the assertion in the petition 
that disease is not a threat to the spring pygmy sunfish. Predation 
does pose a potential threat to the spring pygmy sunfish.
    In summary, we find that neither the information in the petition, 
nor other information in our files, indicates that disease is a threat 
to the spring pygmy sunfish. However, we find that the information 
provided in the petition, as well as other information in our files, 
suggests that predation by natural or invasive species may pose a 
threat to the spring pygmy sunfish. We will evaluate all factors, 
including disease and predation, when we conduct the status review.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition states that the spring pygmy sunfish is not formally 
recognized or protected at any government level. Current State and 
Federal laws and regulations involving alteration of wetlands; 
channelization; water withdrawal; pesticide use and other agriculture 
best management practices; and buffer zones to protect water quality 
and quantity within spring systems are available, but these do not 
prohibit destroying the spring pygmy sunfish or its habitat.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    The spring pygmy sunfish and its habitat are afforded some 
protection from water quality and habitat degradation under the Clean 
Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and the Alabama Water 
Pollution Control Law (Code of Alabama, sections 22-22-1 et seq., and 
regulations promulgated thereunder by the Alabama Department of 
Environmental Management) (Maynard and Gale. 1995, pp. 20-28). While 
these laws have resulted in some improvement in water quality and 
stream habitat for aquatic life, including the spring pygmy sunfish, 
such as requiring landowners engaged in agricultural practices to have 
an erosion prevention component within their farm plan, they alone have 
not been fully adequate to protect this species due to inconsistent 
implementation, monitoring, and enforcement. Furthermore, habitat 
degradation is ongoing despite the protection afforded by these laws.
    The State of Alabama maintains water-use classifications through 
issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
permits to industries, municipalities, and others that set maximum 
limits on certain pollutants or pollutant parameters. For water bodies 
on the Clean Water Act's Section 303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies, 
States are required under the Clean Water Act to establish a Total 
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the pollutants of concern that will bring 
water quality into the applicable standard. Many of the water bodies 
that do not meet Clean Water Act standards are within the occupied 
range of the spring pygmy sunfish (Alabama 2008 Section 303(d) List of 
Impaired Water Bodies).
    The State of Alabama's water quality standards, adopted from the 
national standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(USEPA), appear to be protective of the spring pygmy sunfish as long as 
discharges are within permitted limits and are enforced according to 
the provisions of the Clean Water Act. These water quality requirements 
were established with the intent to protect all aquatic resources 
within the State of Alabama and are presumed to be protective of the 
spring pygmy sunfish. The Service is currently in consultation with the 
USEPA to evaluate the efficacy of criteria approved in USEPA's water 
quality standards for endangered and threatened species and their 
critical habitats as described in the Memorandum of Agreement our 
agencies signed in 2001 (66 FR 11201; February 22, 2001). Because the 
spring pygmy sunfish is not currently a federally listed species, it is 
not specifically considered in the ongoing consultation with USEPA.
    Water extraction has also been identified as a potential threat to 
the species (see Factor A above). There are few, if any, State and 
Federal regulations pertaining to ground water extraction and 
protection of aquifer recharge areas.
    In summary, the petition's claim that there are no existing 
regulatory mechanisms that protect the spring pygmy sunfish or its 
habitat from destruction is not supported by the information in our 
files. However, the information in our files indicates that degradation 
of habitat for this species is ongoing despite the protections afforded 
by these existing laws. Therefore, the information in the petition and 
in our files presents substantial information indicating that the 
petitioned action may be warranted due to the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms, particularly those affording protection from 
habitat destruction or degradation.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition states that the Beaverdam Creek metapopulation is 
considered a single, semi-continuous group of subpopulations (Sandel, 
pers. comm., 2007; Sandel 2008, pp. 13-14), and that impediments to 
migration and gene flow between springheads are detrimental to 
maintaining genetic diversity in the species. Individuals from each 
site are genetically identifiable in a structured population, with 
limited, but regular, gene flow. The genetic viability of 
subpopulations is interdependent. Subpopulations may be naturally 
extirpated at times, and the simultaneous loss of many subpopulations 
may cause the metapopulation to become extinct. The petition states 
that inbreeding is a potential factor in the decline of the spring 
pygmy sunfish in Pryor Springs due to the reintroduction of too few 
individuals (Mettee et al. 1986; Sandel 2008) (as cited in petition).
    The petition states that if Asian silver and bighead carps 
(Hypopthalmichthys spp.) are introduced or expand their range from 
their present locality in the lower Tennessee River and Wheeler 
Reservoir systems, they may disturb the Beaverdam Creek plankton 
ecosystem by consuming significant proportions of plankton. The 
petition also states that invasive plant species, such as floating 
Amazonian parrot feather (Myriophyllum aquaticum) and water hyacinth 
(Eichhornia sp.), and the submerged aquatic vegetation Myriophyllum 
verticillatum and Ceratophyllum echinatum, threaten the Beaverdam Creek 
ecosystem by competitively excluding native vegetation and storing 
important nutrients within their aerial stems and

[[Page 18143]]

leaves, resulting in little nutrition or cover for the food base of the 
species (no reference cited in the petition).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    Data from our files support the petition's assertion that 
impediments to migration and gene flow between springheads are 
detrimental to maintaining genetic diversity in the species, and 
therefore may be a significant threat to the spring pygmy sunfish.
    Mechanical fragmentation of the species' habitat into smaller, 
isolated subpopulations has transpired due to localized environmental 
degradation from agriculture, increased urbanization, and other 
anthropogenic disturbances of the spring systems throughout the 
watersheds of the Eastern Highland Rim (Sandel 2008, pp. 2-4, 13). This 
fragmentation of the spring pygmy sunfish's habitat has the potential 
to impose negative selective pressures on the species' populations, 
including genetic isolation; reduction of space for rearing, 
recruitment, and reproduction; reduction of adaptive capabilities and 
increased likelihood of local extinctions (Burkhead et al. 1997, pp. 
397-399). Connectivity of these fragmented habitats as a whole allows 
improvement in water quality by flushing and diluting possible 
pollutants and in water quantity by linking the water bodies together. 
Connectivity also maintains flow between the existing occupied habitat 
and unoccupied habitat, which, in turn, allows for the potential of 
colonization of these unoccupied habitat areas when conditions become 
favorable for the species. In addition, the connectivity also maintains 
heterozygosity (genetic diversity), or gene flow between the 
populations of the species, and reduces inbreeding, thereby maintaining 
the integrity of the population (Hallerman 2003, pp. 363-364).
    However, we find that the information provided in the petition and 
in our files does not support the claim that Asian silver and bighead 
carps, or invasive plant species, pose a threat to the spring pygmy 
sunfish at this time.
    In summary, we find the information provided in the petition, as 
well as other information in our files, concerning habitat 
fragmentation and its resulting effects on gene flow and potential 
demographic impacts within the population is substantial, indicating 
that the petitioned action may be warranted due to other natural or 
manmade factors affecting the spring pygmy sunfish's continued 
existence.

Finding

    On the basis of our review under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we 
have determined that the petition presents substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating that listing the spring pygmy sunfish 
throughout its entire range may be warranted. This finding is based on 
information provided under Factors A, C, D and E. In considering what 
factors might constitute threats, we must look beyond the mere exposure 
of the species to the factor to determine whether the species responds 
to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If 
there is exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a positive 
response, that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the 
species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then 
attempt to determine how significant a threat it is. If the threat is 
significant, it may drive or contribute to the risk of extinction of 
the species such that the species may warrant listing as endangered or 
threatened as those terms are defined by the Act. This does not 
necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The combination of 
exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the species is likely 
impacted could suffice. The mere identification of factors that could 
impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a finding 
that listing may be warranted. The information should contain evidence 
sufficient to suggest that these factors may be operative threats that 
act on the species to the point that the species may meet the 
definition of endangered or threatened under the Act.
    Because we have found that the petition presents substantial 
information indicating that listing may be warranted, we are initiating 
a status review to determine whether listing the spring pygmy sunfish 
under the Act is warranted.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at 
https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Mississippi 
Ecological Services Field Office, 6578 Dogwood View Parkway, Jackson, 
MS 39213.

Authors

    The primary author of this notice is Daniel J. Drennen of the 
Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office, Jackson, MS (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

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

    Dated: March 16, 2011.
Rowan W. Gould,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-7691 Filed 3-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P