Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Partial 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 404 Species in the Southeastern United States as Endangered or Threatened With Critical Habitat, 59836-59862 [2011-24633]
Download as PDF
59836
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2011–0049; MO
92210–0–0009]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Partial 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To List 404 Species in the
Southeastern United States as
Endangered or Threatened With
Critical Habitat
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of petition finding and
initiation of status review.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
partial 90-day finding on a petition to
list 404 species in the southeastern
United States as endangered or
threatened under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
Based on our review, we find that for
374 of the 404 species, the petition
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
listing may be warranted. Therefore,
with the publication of this notice, we
are initiating a status review of the 374
species to determine if listing is
warranted. To ensure that the review is
comprehensive, we are soliciting
scientific and commercial information
regarding these 374 species. Based on
the status reviews, we will issue 12month findings on the petition, which
will address whether the petitioned
action is warranted, as provided in
section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. Of the 30
other species in the petition, 1 species—
Alabama shad—has had a 90-day
finding published by the National
Marine Fisheries Service, and 18 species
are already on the Service’s list of
candidate species or are presently the
subject of proposed rules to list. We
have not yet made a finding on the
remaining 11 species, but anticipate
doing so no later than September 30,
2011.
DATES: To allow us adequate time to
conduct a status review, we request that
we receive information on or before
November 28, 2011. The deadline for
submitting an electronic comment using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
ADDRESSES section below) is 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time on this date.
After November 28, 2011, you must
submit information directly to the
Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below).
Please note that we may not be able to
address or incorporate information that
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
we receive after the above requested
date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit
information by one of the following
methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Enter
Keyword or ID box, enter Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2011–0049, which is the
docket number for this action. Then
click on the Search button.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
or hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R4–ES–2011–
0049; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS
2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We
will post all information received on
https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us
(see Request for Information section
below for more details).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Janet Mizzi, Chief, Division of
Endangered Species, Ecological
Services, Southeast Regional Office,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875
Century Blvd., Atlanta, GA 30345; by
telephone at 404–679–7169; or by
facsimile at 404–679–7081. If you use a
telecommunications 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 a species
may be warranted for listing, we are
required to promptly review the status
of the species (status review). For the
status reviews to be complete and based
on the best available scientific and
commercial information, we request
information on the 374 species from
governmental agencies, Native
American tribes, the scientific
community, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning the status
of the species. 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(2) The factors that are the basis for
making a listing determination for a
species under section 4(a) of the 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.
(3) The potential effects of climate
change on the species and their habitat.
If, after the status review, we
determine that listing any of these
species is warranted, it is our intent to
propose critical habitat under section 4
of the Act, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable at the time
we propose to list the species.
Therefore, we also request data and
information on:
(1) What may constitute ‘‘physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species,’’ within the
geographical range currently occupied
by the species;
(2) Where these features are currently
found;
(3) Whether any of these features may
require special management
considerations or protection;
(4) Specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species that are ‘‘essential for the
conservation of the species;’’ and
(5) 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, other supporting
publications, or data) 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
threatened species must be made
‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific
and commercial data available.’’
You may submit your information
concerning the status reviews or the 404
species 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
E:\FR\FM\27SEP4.SGM
27SEP4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
identifying information—will be posted
on the Web site. If your submission is
made via a hardcopy that includes
personal identifying information, you
may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this 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 by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Southeast Ecological Services
Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires
that we make a finding on whether a
petition to list, delist, or reclassify a
species presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
a petitioned action may be warranted.
We are to base this finding on
information found 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
this 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 12month finding.
Petition History
On April 20, 2010, we received, via
electronic mail, a petition from the
Center for Biological Diversity (CBD),
Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch
Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, Gulf
Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests
Council, West Virginia Highlands
Conservancy, Tierra Curry, and Noah
Greenwald (referred to below as the
CBD petition) to list 404 aquatic,
riparian, and wetland species from the
southeastern United States as
endangered or threatened species and to
designate critical habitat concurrent
with listing under the Act. The petition
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
clearly identified itself as a petition, was
dated, and included the identification
information required at 50 CFR
424.14(a). On April 21, 2010, via
electronic mail to Noah Greenwald at
CBD, we acknowledged receipt of the
petition. On May 10, 2010, the
Southeast Region of the Service, to
which the petition had been assigned,
provided additional formal written
acknowledgement of receipt of the
petition.
The petitioners developed an initial
list of species by searching NatureServe
for species that ‘‘occur in the twelve
states typically considered the
Southeast, occur in aquatic, riparian, or
wetland habitats and appeared to be
imperiled.’’ Species were considered
imperiled if they were classified as G1
or G2 by NatureServe, near threatened
or worse by the International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), or a
species of concern, threatened, or
endangered by the American Fisheries
Society.
NatureServe conservation status ranks
range from critically imperiled (1) to
demonstrably secure (5). Status is
assessed and documented at three
distinct geographic scales: Global (G),
national (N), and subnational (S) (i.e.,
state/province/municipal). Subspecies
are similarly assessed with a subspecific
(T) numerical assignment. Assessment
by NatureServe of any species as being
critically imperiled (G1), imperiled (G2),
or vulnerable (G3) does not constitute a
recommendation by NatureServe for
listing under the Act. NatureServe status
assessment procedures have different
criteria, evidence requirements,
purposes, and taxonomic coverage than
government lists of endangered and
threatened species, and therefore these
two types of lists should not be
expected to coincide. For example, an
important factor in many legal listing
processes is the extent to which a
species is already receiving protection
of some type—a consideration not
included in the NatureServe
conservation status ranks. Similarly, the
IUCN and American Fisheries Society
do not apply the same criteria to their
ranking determinations as those
encompassed in the Act and its
implementing regulations.
On May 7, 2010, the Service received
correspondence from the Southeastern
Fishes Council, dated May 2, 2010, with
an explanation of its involvement in
formulation of the petition. The Council
was contacted by CBD, which solicited
the Council’s involvement in the
preparation of the subject petition. The
Southeastern Fishes Council’s members
provided expertise in review of the
CBD’s list of fishes in the draft petition.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59837
On May 27, 2010, the Freshwater
Mollusk Conservation Society submitted
a letter to the Regional Director, Fish
and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region,
in support of the CBD petition’s
inclusion of a large number of
freshwater mollusks. On September 1,
2010, and again on October 1, 2010,
CBD forwarded to the Regional Director,
Service, Southeast Region, a letter of
support for the subject petition from 35
conservation organizations.
The CBD submitted supplemental
comments and information on October
6, 2010, in support of protecting the
Panama City crayfish (Procambarus
econfinae) under the Act. On December
13, 2010, we received a second petition,
from Wild South, to list the Carolina
hemlock (Tsuga caroliniana), as
endangered and to designate its critical
habitat. We acknowledged receipt of the
petition in a letter dated December 20,
2010, and identified it as a second
petition for the same species’ as Tsuga
caroliniana was one of the species
identified in the CBD petition.
The CBD petition included 404
species for which the petitioners
requested listing as endangered or
threatened under the Act, and
designation of critical habitat
concurrent with the listing. It is our
practice to evaluate all species
petitioned for listing for the potential
need to emergency list the species under
the emergency provisions of the Act at
section 4(b)(7) and as outlined at 50 CFR
424.20. We have carefully considered
the information provided in the petition
and in our files and have determined
that emergency listing is not indicated
for any of the 404 species in the
petition.
The petition included 18 species that
were already on the Service’s list of
candidate species at the time of receipt
of the petition, including five that have
since been proposed to be listed as
endangered. A candidate species is one
for which we have on file sufficient
information on biological vulnerability
and threats to support a proposal to list
as endangered or threatened, but for
which preparation and publication of a
proposal is precluded by higher priority
listing actions. We may identify a
species as a candidate for listing based
on an evaluation of its status that we
conducted on our own initiative, or as
a result of making a finding on a
petition to list a species that listing is
warranted but precluded by other higher
priority listing actions. Of the 404
species that are the subjects of the
petition, 18 had already been placed on
the candidate list as a result of our own
review and evaluation. These include:
sicklefin redhorse (Moxostoma sp. 2 (the
E:\FR\FM\27SEP4.SGM
27SEP4
59838
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
2 refers to one of two species within the
genus that have not yet been officially
classified)), laurel dace (Phoxinus
saylori) ((currently proposed for listing
as endangered (June 24, 2011; 75 FR
36035)), spectaclecase (Cumberlandia
monodonta) ((currently proposed for
listing as endangered (January 19, 2011;
76 FR 3392)), narrow pigtoe (Fusconaia
escambia), round ebonyshell (Fusconaia
rotulata), southern sandshell (Hamiota
australis), sheepnose (Plethobasus
cyphyus) ((currently proposed for listing
as endangered (January 19, 2011; 76 FR
3392)), fuzzy pigtoe (Pleurobema
strodeanum), southern kidneyshell
(Ptychobranchus jonesi), rabbitsfoot
(Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica),
tapered pigtoe (Fusconaia burkei),
Choctaw bean (Villosa choctawensis),
rayed bean (Villosa fabalis) ((currently
proposed for listing as endangered
(November 2, 2010; 75 FR 67552)), black
mudalia (Elimia melanoides), Coleman
cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus
colemanensis), Black Warrior waterdog
(Necturus alabamensis), and Yadkin
River goldenrod (Solidago plumosa). We
proposed to list the snuffbox
(Epioblasma triquetra) as endangered on
November 2, 2010 (75 FR 67552).
We conduct a review of all candidate
species annually to ensure that a
proposed listing is justified for each
species, and reevaluate the relative
listing priority number assigned to each
species. We also evaluate the need to
emergency list any of these species,
particularly species with high priorities.
Through this annual review we also add
new candidate species and remove
those that no longer warrant listing.
This review and reevaluation ensure
that we focus conservation efforts on
those species at greatest risk first.
Because we have already made the
equivalent of a 90-day and a 12-month
finding on the species listed above, and
they have already been identified as
warranting listing, including five that
we have proposed to list as endangered,
we find the petition provides substantial
scientific or commercial information
indicating that these species may be
warranted for listing.
The CBD petition includes one
species, the Alabama shad (Alosa
alabamae), that falls under the
jurisdiction of the NMFS. According to
the 1974 Memorandum of
Understanding regarding jurisdictional
responsibilities and listing procedures
between the Service and NMFS, the
NMFS has jurisdiction over species
which either (1) Reside the majority
portion of their lifetimes in marine
waters, or (2) are species which spend
part of their lifetimes in estuarine
waters, if the majority portion of the
remaining time (the time which is not
spent in estuarine waters) is spent in
marine waters. Based on this definition,
NMFS has jurisdiction for the Alabama
shad, and, accordingly, NMFS provided
a letter to the Service, dated April 30,
2010, proposing to evaluate the subject
petition, for the Alabama shad only, for
the purpose of the 90-day finding and
any required subsequent listing action.
The NMFS published the 90-day finding
for the Alabama shad on February 17,
2011 (76 FR 9320), and in that
document announced its finding that
the petition did not present substantial
scientific or commercial information
indicating that listing may be warranted
for the Alabama shad.
Previous Federal Actions
A large number of the petitioned
species have previously been
considered for listing under the Act and
were at one time or another assigned
status as a category 1, 2, or 3C candidate
species. A category 1 candidate species
was one for which the Service had
substantial information on hand to
support the biological appropriateness
of proposing to list as endangered or
threatened, and for which development
and publication of such a proposal was
anticipated. A category 2 candidate
species was one for which there was
some evidence of vulnerability, but for
which additional biological information
was needed to support a proposed rule
to list as endangered or threatened. A
category 3C candidate was one that was
proven to be more widespread than was
previously believed and/or those that
were not subject to any identifiable
threats. These categories were
discontinued in 1996 (December 5,
1996; 61 FR 64481) in favor of
maintaining a list that only represented
those species for which we have on file
sufficient information on biological
vulnerability and threats to support a
proposal to list as endangered or
threatened, but for which preparation
and publication of a proposal is
precluded by higher priority listing
actions.
The Service was previously petitioned
to list two of the subject petitioned
species, the Say’s spiketail dragonfly
(February 15, 1994) and the orangefin
madtom (October 6, 1983), as
endangered species. We published 90day findings for Say’s spiketail
dragonfly on October 26, 1994 (59 FR
53776), and the orangefin madtom on
January 16, 1984 (49 FR 1919),
respectively, and 12-month findings on
July 17, 1995 (60 FR 36380), and July
18, 1985 (50 FR 29238), respectively.
Similarly, we previously proposed to
list as endangered the Barrens
topminnow (December 30, 1977; 42 FR
65209). However, that proposal was
never finalized.
TABLE 1—PREVIOUS FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES ADDRESSING THE PETITIONED SPECIES
Publication
date
Action
74 FR 57804 ..............................
11/9/2009 ....
61 FR 64481 ..............................
12/5/1996 ....
61 FR 7596 ................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
FR Citation
02/28/1996 ..
60 FR 36380 ..............................
59 FR 58982 ..............................
7/17/1995 ....
11/15/1994 ..
59 FR 53776 ..............................
58 FR 51144 ..............................
10/26/1994 ..
9/30/1993 ....
56 FR 58664 ..............................
56 FR 58804 ..............................
11/21/1991 ..
11/21/1991 ..
55 FR 17475 ..............................
4/25/1990 ....
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (ETWP): Review of Native Species That Are
Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice on Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule.
ETWP; Notice of Final Decision on Identification of Candidates for Listing as Endangered or
Threatened.
ETWP; Review of Plant and Animal Taxa That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or
Threatened Species; Proposed Rule.
ETWP; 12-Month Finding for a Petition To List the Say’s Spiketail Dragonfly as Endangered.
ETWP; Animal Candidate Review for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species; Notice of
Review.
ETWP; 90-Day Finding for a Petition To List the Say’s Spiketail Dragonfly as Endangered.
ETWP; Review of Plant Taxa for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species; Notice of Review.
ETWP; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions and Findings on Recycled Petitions.
ETWP; Review of Animal Taxa for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species; Notice of
Review.
ETWP; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions and Findings on Recycled Petitions.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27SEP4.SGM
27SEP4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
59839
TABLE 1—PREVIOUS FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES ADDRESSING THE PETITIONED SPECIES—Continued
FR Citation
Publication
date
Action
55 FR 6184 ................................
2/21/1990 ....
54 FR 554 ..................................
1/6/1989 ......
53
53
52
51
50
FR
FR
FR
FR
FR
52746 ..............................
25511 ..............................
24312 ..............................
996 ..................................
39526 ..............................
12/29/1988 ..
7/7/1988 ......
6/30/1987 ....
1/09/1986 ....
9/27/1985 ....
50
50
50
49
49
49
48
FR
FR
FR
FR
FR
FR
FR
37958 ..............................
29238 ..............................
19761 ..............................
21664 ..............................
2485 ................................
1919 ................................
53640 ..............................
9/18/1985 ....
7/18/1985 ....
5/10/1985 ....
5/22/1984 ....
1/20/1984 ....
1/16/1984 ....
11/28/1983 ..
47 FR 58454 ..............................
12/30/1982 ..
45 FR 82480 ..............................
12/15/1980 ..
44 FR 70796 ..............................
12/10/1979 ..
44 FR 44418 ..............................
44 FR 12382 ..............................
43 FR 21702 ..............................
7/27/1979 ....
3/6/1979 ......
5/19/1978 ....
43 FR 17909 ..............................
4/26/1978 ....
42 FR 65209 ..............................
41 FR 24524 ..............................
40 FR 27824 ..............................
12/30/1977 ..
6/16/1976 ....
7/1/1975 ......
ETWP; Review of Plant Taxa for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species; Notice of Review.
ETWP; Review of Animal Taxa for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species; Notice of
Review.
ETWP; Findings on Pending Petitions and Description of Progress on Listing Actions.
ETWP; Findings on Pending Petitions and Description of Progress on Listing Actions.
ETWP; Findings on Pending Petitions and Description of Progress on Listing Actions.
ETWP; Findings on Pending Petitions and Description of Progress on Listing Actions.
ETWP; Review of Plant Taxa for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species; Notice of Review.
ETWP; Review of Vertebrate Wildlife.
12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Orangefin Madtom.
ETWP; Findings on Pending Petitions and Description of Progress on Listing Actions.
ETWP; Review of Invertebrate Wildlife for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species.
ETWP; Findings on Pending Petitions and Description of Progress on Listing Actions.
ETWP; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Orangefin Madtom.
ETWP; Supplement to Review of Plant Taxa for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species.
ETWP; Review of Vertebrate Wildlife for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species; Notice
of Review.
ETWP; Review of Plant Taxa for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species; Notice of Review.
ETWP; Notice of Withdrawal of That Portion of Our June 16, 1976, Proposed Rule That Has
Not Yet Been Finalized.
ETWP; Reproposal of Critical Habitat for the Barrens Topminnow.
ETWP; Withdrawal of Proposed Critical Habitat for the Barrens Topminnow.
ETWP; Proposed Endangered Status and Critical Habitat for Two Species of Turtles (Key Mud
Turtle and Plymouth Red-bellied Turtle).
ETWP; Final Rule and Summary of General Comments Received in Response to a Proposal
To List Some 1700 U.S. Vascular Plants.
ETWP; Proposed Endangered Status for the Barrens Topminnow.
ETWP; Proposed Endangered Status for Some 1700 U.S. Vascular Plants.
Acceptance of Smithsonian Report As a Petition To List Taxa Named Therein Under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act and Intention To Review the Status of Those Plants.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Species Information
The petition identified 404 aquatic,
riparian, and wetland species from the
southeastern United States as needing
protection under the Act. This list
included 15 amphibians, 6 amphipods,
18 beetles, 3 birds, 4 butterflies, 9
caddisflies, 83 crayfish, 14 dragonflies,
48 fish, 1 springfly, 1 fairy shrimp, 2
isopods, 4 mammals, 1 moth, 48
mussels, 6 non-vascular plants, 13
reptiles, 44 snails, 8 stoneflies, and 76
vascular plants. Of these 404 species,
374 species are addressed in this finding
(listed in Table 2 in the Summary of
Threats as Identified in the Petition
section below). We have not yet made
a finding on the following 11 species:
South Florida rainbow snake (Farancia
erytrogramma seminola), Sarah’s
hydroptila caddisfly (Hydroptila
sarahae), Rogue Creek hydroptila
caddisfly (Hydroptila okaloosa), Florida
brown checkered summer sedge
(Polycentropus floridensis), Florida fairy
shrimp (Dexteria floridana), Ouachita
creekshell (Villosa arkansasensis),
crystal darter (Crystallaria asprella),
spotted darter (Etheostoma maculatum),
Florida bog frog (Rana okaloosae),
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
Greensboro burrowing crayfish
(Cambarus catagius), and Blood River
crayfish (Orconectes burri).
The nature of this petition finding,
that is, the large number of species
evaluated, necessitates our limiting a
discussion of species information to a
general one; only where there is a
clarification necessary do we provide
specific species information below.
The petition identified 15 amphibians
and requested that they be added to the
List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife (List). Thirteen of these are
subjects of this finding, including the
following: Streamside salamander
(Ambystoma barbouri), one-toed
amphiuma (Amphiuma pholeter),
hellbender (Cryptobranchus
alleganiensis), Cumberland dusky
salamander (Desmognathus abditus),
seepage salamander (Desmognathus
aeneus), Chamberlain’s dwarf
salamander (Eurycea chamberlaini),
Oklahoma salamander (Eurycea
tynerensis), Tennessee cave salamander
(Gyrinophilus palleucus), West Virginia
spring salamander (Gyrinophilus
subterraneus), Georgia blind salamander
(Eurycea wallacei, formerly known as,
and identified by petitioners as,
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Haideotriton wallacei), Neuse River
waterdog (Necturus lewisi), Gulf
hammock dwarf siren (Pseudobranchus
striatus lustricolus), and patch-nosed
salamander (Urspelerpes brucei). The
Black Warrior waterdog (Necturus
alabamensis) is already on the Service’s
candidate species list. The seepage
salamander, Oklahoma salamander,
Tennessee cave salamander, West
Virginia Spring salamander, Georgia
blind salamander, Neuse River
waterdog, hellbender, and Gulf
hammock dwarf siren were previous C2
candidates for Federal listing, until that
category was discontinued in 1996.
Chamberlain’s dwarf salamander is
given a NatureServe global ranking of
G5; however, its status in Georgia is S1,
indicating it is considered critically
imperiled in that State. The streamside
salamander is given the G4 conservation
status by NatureServe; however, it is
considered critically imperiled (S1) in
West Virginia, imperiled (S2) in
Tennessee, and vulnerable (S3) in
Indiana. The one-toed amphiuma
maintains a global G3 ranking by
NatureServe; however, it is also
considered critically imperiled by
NatureServe in Mississippi, Alabama,
E:\FR\FM\27SEP4.SGM
27SEP4
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
59840
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
and Georgia, and vulnerable in Florida.
The Tennessee cave salamander
maintains a NatureServe global ranking
of G2 with State rankings of S2 (AL and
TN) and S1 (GA). The hellbender
maintains a NatureServe global ranking
of G3. Its State status ranges from S1 to
S3. The subspecies bishopi, or Ozark
hellbender, was proposed for Federal
listing as endangered on September 8,
2010 (75 FR 54561). The Cumberland
dusky salamander and Georgia blind
salamander each have a NatureServe
conservation status of imperiled (G2),
with State rankings varying from
possibly extirpated, to critically
imperiled, to imperiled. The seepage
salamander, Oklahoma salamander, and
Neuse River waterdog each have a
NatureServe global conservation ranking
of G3, with individual State rankings of
S1 to S3. The West Virginia spring
salamander and patch-nosed
salamander each have a NatureServe
conservation ranking of G1. The Gulf
hammock dwarf siren is given a
NatureServe global ranking of T1. The
dwarf siren has not been documented
since its description in 1951.
The petition identified six amphipods
and requested that they be added to the
List, including the following: Florida
cave amphipod (Crangonyx
grandimanus), Hobbs cave amphipod
(Crangonyx hobbsi), Cooper’s cave
amphipod (Stygobromus cooperi),
tidewater amphipod (Stygobromus
indentatus), Morrison’s cave amphipod
(Stygobromus morrisoni), and minute
cave amphipod (Stygobromus parvus).
These six amphipods are each
assigned a NatureServe Global ranking
of either G2 or G3, indicating they are
considered imperiled or vulnerable
across their entire range. Cooper’s cave
amphipod, tidewater amphipod,
Morrison’s cave amphipod and the
minute cave amphipod were each
previous Service category 2 candidate
species for listing (species for which
there was some evidence of
vulnerability, but for which additional
biological information was needed to
support a proposed rule to list as
endangered or threatened).
The petition identified 18 beetles and
requested that they be added to the List.
Seventeen of these are included in this
finding, including the following:
Cobblestone tiger beetle (Cincindela
marginipennis), Avernus cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus avernus), Little
Kennedy cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus cordicollis), New
River Valley cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus egberti),
Cumberland Gap cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus hirsutus),
Hubbard’s cave beetle
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
(Pseudanophthalmus hubbardi),
Hubricht’s cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus hubrichti),
Crossroad’s cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus intersectus),
Madden’s cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus limicola), Dry
Fork Valley cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus montanus),
Natural Bridge cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus pontis), South
Branch Valley cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus potomaca),
overlooked cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus praetermissus),
Saint Paul cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus sanctipauli),
silken cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus
sericus), Thomas’s cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus thomasi), and
Maiden Spring cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus virginicus). The
Coleman’s cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus colemanensis) is
already a Federal candidate species.
These cave beetles are locally
endemic to small cave systems in
Virginia, West Virginia, and Tennessee.
Sixteen of them are afforded a
NatureServe ranking of G1, with a
population size of 1,000 or fewer, and
many have not been documented since
their description. One cave beetle, the
South Branch Valley cave beetle, has a
slightly wider range and is afforded a
NatureServe ranking of G3. All of these
beetles were previous category 2
candidates for Federal listing, until that
category was discontinued in 1996.
The petition identified three birds and
requested that they be added to the List,
including the following: MacGillivray’s
seaside sparrow (Ammodrammus
maritimus macgillivraii), Florida
sandhill crane (Grus canadensis
pratensis), and black rail (Laterallus
jamaicensis). MacGillivray’s seaside
sparrow and the Florida sandhill crane
are given a NatureServe ranking of T2,
while the black rail is more widely
distributed and given a NatureServe
ranking of G4. The black rail is a
previous category 2 candidate species.
The petition identified four butterflies
and requested that they be added to the
List, including the following: Linda’s
roadside-skipper (Amblyscirtes linda),
Duke’s skipper (Euphyes dukesi
calhouni), Palatka skipper (Euphyes
pilatka klotsi), and rare skipper
(Problema bulenta). Linda’s roadside
skipper and the rare skipper are
afforded a NatureServe ranking of G2.
Duke’s and Palatka’s skippers are
afforded NatureServe rankings of T2 and
T1, respectively. The rare skipper was
previously considered a category 2
candidate, until that category was
discontinued by the Service in 1996.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The petition identified nine
caddisflies and requested that they be
added to the List. Six of these are
included in this finding, including the
following: Logan’s agarodes caddisfly
(Agarodes logani), Sykora’s hydroptila
caddisfly (Hydroptila sykorae), Morse’s
little plain brown sedge (Lepidostoma
morsei), little oecetis longhorn caddisfly
(Oecetis parva), Setose cream and
brown mottled microcaddisfly
(Oxyethira setosa), and three-toothed
triaenodes caddisfly (Triaenodes
tridontus).
Of these caddisflies, two are assigned
a NatureServe ranking of G1, and four
are assigned a G2. There is very little
known about these species except that
they appear to be very narrow endemics.
The little oecetis longhorn caddisfly and
three-toothed triaenodes caddisfly are
previous category 2 candidate species.
The petition identified 83 crayfish
and requested that they be added to the
List. Eighty-one of these are included in
this finding: Bayou Bodcau crayfish
(Bouchardina robisoni), Dougherty Plain
cave crayfish (Cambarus cryptodytes),
Obey crayfish (Cambarus obeyensis),
cypress crayfish (Cambarellus blacki),
least crayfish (Cambarellus diminutus),
angular dwarf crawfish (Cambarellus
lesliei), Big South Fork crayfish
(Cambarus bouchardi), New River
crayfish (Cambarus chasmodactylus),
Chauga crayfish (Cambarus
chaugaensis), Coosawattae crayfish
(Cambarus coosawattae), slenderclaw
crayfish (Cambarus cracens), Conasauga
blue burrower (Cambarus cymatilis),
Grandfather Mountain crayfish
(Cambarus eeseeohensis), Elk River
crayfish (Cambarus elkensis),
Chickamauga crayfish (Cambarus
extraneus), Etowah crayfish (Cambarus
fasciatus), Little Tennessee crayfish
(Cambarus georgiae), Piedmont blue
burrower (Cambarus harti), spiny scale
crayfish (Cambarus jezerinaci), Alabama
cave crayfish (Cambarus jonesi),
Greenbrier cave crayfish (Cambarus
nerterius), Hiwassee headwater crayfish
(Cambarus parrishi), pristine crayfish
(Cambarus pristinus), Chattooga River
crayfish (Cambarus scotti), beautiful
crayfish (Cambarus speciosus), Broad
River spiny crayfish (Cambarus
spicatus), lean crayfish (Cambarus
strigosus), blackbarred crayfish
(Cambarus unestami), Big Sandy
crayfish (Cambarus veteranus),
Brawley’s Fork crayfish (Cambarus
williami), mimic crayfish
(Distocambarus carlsoni), Broad River
burrowing crayfish (Distocambarus
devexus), Newberry burrowing crayfish
(Distocambarus youngineri), burrowing
bog crayfish (Fallicambarus burrisi),
speckled burrowing crayfish
E:\FR\FM\27SEP4.SGM
27SEP4
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
(Fallicambarus danielae), Jefferson
County crayfish (Fallicambarus gilpini),
Ouachita burrowing crayfish
(Fallicambarus harpi), Hatchie
burrowing crayfish (Fallicambarus
hortoni), slenderwrist burrowing
crayfish (Fallicambarus petilicarpus),
Saline burrowing crayfish
(Fallicambarus strawni), Crested riverlet
crayfish (Hobbseus cristatus), Oktibbeha
riverlet crayfish (Hobbseus
orconectoides), Tombigbee riverlet
crayfish (Hobbseus petilus), Yalobusha
riverlet crayfish (Hobbseus
yalobushensis), Calcasieu crayfish
(Orconectes blacki), Coldwater crayfish
(Orconectes eupunctus), Yazoo crayfish
(Orconectes hartfieldi), Tennessee cave
crayfish (Orconectes incomptus),
Sucarnoochee River crayfish
(Orconectes jonesi), Kisatchie painted
crayfish (Orconectes maletae),
Mammoth Spring crayfish (Orconectes
marchandi), Appalachian cave crayfish
(Orconectes packardi), Shelta cave
crayfish (Orconectes sheltae),
Chowanoke crayfish (Orconectes
virginiensis), Hardin crayfish
(Orconectes wrighti), Orlando cave
crayfish (Procambarus acherontis),
Coastal flatwoods crayfish
(Procambarus apalachicolae), Silver
Glen Springs crayfish (Procambarus
attiguus), Jackson Prairie crayfish
(Procambarus barbiger), Mississippi
flatwoods crayfish (Procambarus
cometes), bigcheek cave crayfish
(Procambarus delicatus), Panama City
crayfish (Procambarus econfinae), Santa
Fe cave crayfish (Procambarus
erythrops), spinytail crayfish
(Procambarus fitzpatricki), Orange Lake
cave crayfish (Procambarus franzi), Big
Blue Springs cave crayfish
(Procambarus horsti), lagniappe crayfish
(Procambarus lagniappe), coastal
lowland cave crayfish (Procambarus
leitheuseri), Florida cave crayfish
(Procambarus lucifugus), Alachua lightfleeing cave crayfish (Procambarus
lucifugus alachua), Florida cave
crayfish (Procambarus lucifugus
lucifugus), Shutispear crayfish
(Procambarus lylei), Miami cave
crayfish (Procambarus milleri), Putnam
County cave crayfish (Procambarus
morrisi), Woodville Karst cave crayfish
(Procambarus orcinus), pallid cave
crayfish (Procambarus pallidus), Black
Creek crayfish (Procambarus pictus),
bearded red crayfish (Procambarus
pogum), regal burrowing crayfish
(Procambarus regalis), Irons Fork
burrowing crayfish (Procambarus
reimeri), and spider cave crayfish
(Troglocambarus maclanei).
The petition identified the Florida
cave crayfish twice in its list of 404
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
species, once at the species level,
Procambarus lucifugus, and once at the
subspecific level, Procambarus
lucifugus lucifugus. We include both in
this finding with the intent that a
further status review will assess the
status at both the species and subspecies
levels.
We received an amended petition
from CBD providing supplemental
comments in support of listing the
Panama City crayfish. The petition
identified threats from habitat loss and
degradation, predation, overharvest
from collections for use as fishing bait,
drought, its limited range and isolated
distribution, pollution from pesticides
and fertilizers, invasive species of
introduced crayfish, and the inadequacy
of existing regulatory mechanisms. The
Panama City crayfish only occurs in Bay
County, Florida, where it is considered
a species of special concern by the State
of Florida. The Service has worked with
the State and the St. Joe Company to
develop a Candidate Conservation
Agreement with Assurances, but the
Agreement has not been finalized.
Almost all of the petitioned crayfish
are restricted to narrow ranges
encompassing small cave or stream
systems, which places them in the G1 or
G2 NatureServe ranking due to their
restricted ranges. Two exceptions to this
are the Woodville Karst cave crayfish
(Procambarus orcinus), which receives a
G3 ranking, and the regal burrowing
crayfish (Procambarus regalis), which is
given a G2G3 ranking. Their narrow
ranges make these crayfish vulnerable to
any event that would result in habitat
degradation. A number of the crayfish
(26) were previously considered
category 2 candidates until that category
was discontinued by the Service in
1996.
The petition identified 14 dragonflies
and requested that they be added to the
List, including the following: Say’s
spiketail (Cordulegaster sayi), Cherokee
clubtail (Gomphus consanguis),
Tennessee clubtail (Gomphus sandrius),
Septima’s clubtail (Gomphus septima),
Westfall’s clubtail (Gomphus westfalli),
purple skimmer (Libellula jesseana),
Mountain River cruiser (Macromia
margarita), southern snaketail
(Ophiogomphus australis), Edmund’s
snaketail (Ophiogomphus edmundo),
Appalachian snaketail (Ophiogomphus
incurvatus), Calvert’s emerald
(Somatochlora calverti), Texas emerald
(Somatochlora margarita), Ozark
emerald (Somatochlora ozarkensis), and
yellow-sided clubtail (Stylurus
potulentus).
The Service was previously (February
15, 1994) petitioned to list the Say’s
spiketail dragonfly as an endangered
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59841
species. We published a 90-day finding
on October 26, 1994 (59 FR 53776)
indicating that because the species was
already a category 2 candidate for listing
we would proceed with a full status
review. The 12-month finding was
published on July 17, 1995 (60 FR
36380). The Service found that listing
the species was not warranted but
retained the designation of the Say’s
spiketail as a category 2 candidate
species. An additional eight of the
petitioned dragonflies held previous
designations of category 2 candidate
species, including the Cherokee clubtail,
Tennessee clubtail, Septima’s clubtail,
Westfall’s clubtail, Mountain River
cruiser, Edmund’s snaketail,
Appalachian snaketail, and the Texas
emerald. The NatureServe global
ranking of the petitioned dragonflies
ranges from G1, critically imperiled, to
G3, vulnerable.
The petition identified 47 fish (not
including the Alabama shad (Alosa
alabamae), which has already been the
subject of a 90-day finding by NMFS) to
be added to the List. Forty-three of these
are included in this finding, including
the following: Northern cavefish
(Amblyopsis spelaea), bluestripe shiner
(Cyprinella callitaenia), Altamaha
shiner (Cyprinella xaenura), Carolina
pygmy sunfish (Elassoma boehlkei),
Ozark chub (Erimystax harryi), Warrior
darter (Etheostoma bellator), holiday
darter (Etheostoma brevirostrum), ashy
darter (Etheostoma cinereum), Barrens
darter (Etheostoma forbesi), smallscale
darter (Etheostoma microlepidum),
candy darter (Etheostoma osburni),
paleback darter (Etheostoma
pallididorsum), egg-mimic darter
(Etheostoma pseudovulatum), striated
darter (Etheostoma striatulum),
Shawnee darter (Etheostoma
tecumsehi), Tippecanoe darter
(Etheostoma tippecanoe), trispot darter
(Etheostoma trisella), Tuscumbia darter
(Etheostoma tuscumbia), Barrens
topminnow (Fundulus julisia), robust
redhorse (Moxostoma robustum),
popeye shiner (Notropis ariommus),
Ozark shiner (Notropis ozarcanus),
peppered shiner (Notropis perpallidus),
rocky shiner (Notropis suttkusi),
saddled madtom (Noturus fasciatus),
Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus),
orangefin madtom (Noturus gilberti),
piebald madtom (Noturus gladiator),
Ouachita madtom (Noturus lachneri),
frecklebelly madtom (Noturus munitus),
Caddo madtom (Noturus taylori),
Chesapeake logperch (Percina
bimaculata), coal darter (Percina
brevicauda), Halloween darter (Percina
crypta), bluestripe darter (Percina
cymatotaenia), bridled darter (Percina
E:\FR\FM\27SEP4.SGM
27SEP4
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
59842
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
kusha), longhead darter (Percina
macrocephala), longnose darter (Percina
nasuta), bankhead darter (Percina sipsi),
sickle darter (Percina williamsi),
broadstripe shiner (Pteronotropis
euryzonus), bluehead shiner
(Pteronotropis hubbsi), and blackfin
sucker (Thoburnia atripinnis). The
NatureServe global ranking of these fish
ranges from G1 to G4.
Since receipt of the CBD petition, the
laurel dace was proposed for listing as
endangered (75 FR 36035; June 24,
2010). The sicklefin redhorse has
already been found to be warranted for
listing and is a current Federal
candidate species.
On December 30, 1977, the Barrens
topminnow was proposed for listing as
endangered with critical habitat (42 FR
65209). On March 6, 1979, the critical
habitat portion of the proposal was
withdrawn due to the procedural and
substantive changes made to the Act in
1978 (44 FR 12382). On July 27, 1979,
the Service published a reproposal of
critical habitat for the Barrens
topminnow (44 FR 44418). A final
listing was never published, and the
species was subsequently classified as a
category 2 candidate for Federal listing
until that category was discontinued in
1996.
On October 6, 1983, the Service was
petitioned to list the orangefin madtom
and a substantial finding was published
on January 16, 1984 (49 FR 1919). On
completion of the status review on
October 12, 1984, a 12-month finding
was made that listing the orangefin
madtom was warranted but precluded
by other efforts to revise the Lists. This
finding was announced in a July 18,
1985, Federal Register notice (50 FR
29238). The species remained a
candidate species until its removal from
the candidate list in 1996.
In addition to the above species, 24 of
the petitioned fish were at one time
candidates for listing under the Act. The
peppered shiner, paleback darter, and
Ouachita madtom were category 1
candidates (47 FR 58454). However,
they were subsequently removed from
the candidate list. Twenty-one of the
petitioned fish were category 2
candidates for listing, including the
following: Northern cavefish, bluestripe
shiner, Carolina pygmy sunfish, Warrior
darter, holiday darter, ashy darter,
Barrens darter, candy darter, egg-mimic
darter, striated darter, trispot darter,
Tuscumbia darter, robust redhorse,
Ozark shiner, Carolina madtom,
frecklebelly madtom, Caddo madtom,
bluestripe darter, longhead darter,
longnose darter, and Halloween darter.
In 1995, the Service entered into a
cooperative voluntary partnership, the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
Robust Redhorse Conservation
Committee, to conserve the robust
redhorse through a Memorandum of
Understanding between State and
Federal resource agencies, private
industry, and the conservation
community. In 2002, the Service entered
into a Robust Redhorse Candidate
Conservation Agreement with
Assurances with the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources and
the Georgia Power Company to restore
the species to the Ocmulgee River.
The petition identified one springfly,
the Blueridge springfly (Remenus
kirchneri), and one moth, the Louisiana
eyed silkmoth (Automeris louisiana),
and requested that they be added to the
List. These species hold NatureServe
global rankings of G2.
The petition identified four mammals
and requested that they be added to the
List, including the following: Sherman’s
short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis
shermani), Pine Island oryzomys or
marsh rice rat (Oryzomys palustris, pop.
1), Sanibel Island oryzomys or marsh
rice rat (Oryzomys palustris, pop. 2),
and insular cotton rat (Sigmodon
hispidus insulicola). All four of these
mammals are afforded a ranking of G1
or T1 by NatureServe. The insular
cotton rat was previously a category 2
candidate species but was removed from
the candidate list in 1996 when the
category was discontinued.
The petition identified two isopods
and requested that they be added to the
List: The Caecidotea cannula (no
common name) and Rye Cove isopod
(Lirceus culveri). These isopods are
given NatureServe rankings of G2
(Caecidotea cannula) and G1 (Rye Cove
isopod). Both species were former
category 2 candidates for listing, until
that category was discontinued in 1996.
The petition identified 48 mussels
and requested that they be added to the
List. Thirteen species of mussels
identified in the petition are not
evaluated in this finding; twelve have
previously been found by the Service to
warrant listing, and one, the Ouachita
creekshell (Villosa arkansasensis) has
not yet been evaluated. Thirty-five of
the petitioned species are included in
this finding, including the following:
Altamaha arcmussel (Alasmidonta
arcula), southern elktoe (Alasmidonta
triangulata), brook floater (Alasmidonta
varicosa), Apalachicola floater
(Anodonta heardi), rayed creekshell
(Anodontoides radiatus), western
fanshell (Cyprogenia aberti), southern
lance (Elliptio ahenea), Alabama spike
(Elliptio arca), delicate spike (Elliptio
arctata), brother spike (Elliptio
fraterna), yellow lance (Elliptio
lanceolata), St. Johns elephant ear
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(Elliptio monroensis), inflated spike
(Elliptio purpurella), Tennessee pigtoe
(Pleuronaia barnesiana), Atlantic pigtoe
(Fusconaia masoni), longsolid
(Fusconaia subrotunda), Waccamaw
fatmucket (Lampsilis fullerkati),
Tennessee heelsplitter (Lasmigona
holstonia), green floater (Lasmigona
subviridis), Cumberland moccasinshell
(Medionidus conradicus), Suwannee
moccasinshell (Medionidus walkeri),
round hickorynut (Obovaria
subrotunda), Alabama hickorynut
(Obovaria unicolor), Canoe Creek pigtoe
(Pleurobema athearni), Tennessee
clubshell (Pleurobema oviforme),
Warrior pigtoe (Pleurobema rubellum),
pyramid pigtoe (Pleurobema rubrum),
inflated floater (Pyganodon gibbosa),
Tallapoosa orb (Quadrula asperata
archeri), salamander mussel
(Simpsonaias ambigua), purple lilliput
(Toxolasma lividus), Savannah lilliput
(Toxolasma pullus), Alabama rainbow
(Villosa nebulosa), Kentucky creekshell
(Villosa ortmanni), and Coosa creekshell
(Villosa umbrans).
These mussels have NatureServe
rankings ranging from G1, critically
imperiled, to G3, vulnerable, with one
mussel, the round hickorynut, having a
ranking of G4, apparently stable. The
Atlantic pigtoe, Waccamaw fatmucket,
Tennessee heelsplitter, green floater,
Suwannee moccasinshell, Tennessee
clubshell, warrior pigtoe, salamander
mussel, purple lilliput, Savannah
lilliput, and Kentucky creekshell, are
previous category 2 candidates for
listing, but were removed when the
category was discontinued in 1996.
The snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra)
and rayed bean (Villosa fabalis) were
proposed for listing as endangered on
November 2, 2010 (75 FR 67552). The
spectaclecase (Cumberlandia
monodonta) and sheepnose
(Plethobasus cyphyus) were proposed as
endangered on January 19, 2011 (76 FR
3392). The other eight are current
candidates for Federal listing and
subjects of a draft proposed rule to list,
including the narrow pigtoe (Fusconaia
escambia), round ebonyshell (Fusconaia
rotulata), southern sandshell (Hamiota
australis), fuzzy pigtoe (Pleurobema
strodeanum), southern kidneyshell
(Ptychobranchus jonesi), rabbitsfoot
(Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica),
tapered pigtoe (Fusconaia burkei), and
Choctaw bean (Villosa choctawensis).
The petition identified six nonvascular plants and requested that they
be added to the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants, including the
following: Fissidens appalachensis
(Appalachian fissidens moss), Fissidens
hallii (Hall’s pocket moss), Megaceros
aenigmaticus (hornwort), Phaeophyscia
E:\FR\FM\27SEP4.SGM
27SEP4
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
leana (Lea’s bog lichen), Plagiochila
caduciloba (Gorge leafy liverwort), and
Plagiochila sharpii ssp. sharpii (Sharp’s
leafy liverwort). The NatureServe Global
ranking for these plants ranges from G2,
imperiled (Fissidens appalachensis,
Fissidens hallii, Phaeophyscia leana,
and Megaceros aenigmaticus), to G3,
vulnerable (Plagiochila caduciloba), to
T3, vulnerable (Plagiochila sharpii ssp.
sharpii). Plagiochila caduciloba and
Plagiochila sharpii ssp. sharpii held
prior Federal category 2 candidate
status, but were removed from that list
when we discontinued use of the
category 2 and 3C lists in 1996.
The petition identified 13 reptiles and
requested that they be added to the List.
Twelve of these are subjects of this
finding, including the following:
Kirtland’s snake (Clonophis kirtlandii),
western chicken turtle (Deirochelys
reticularia miaria), Florida keys mole
skink (Eumeces egregius egregius),
Barbour’s map turtle (Graptemys
barbouri), Escambia map turtle
(Graptemys ernsti), Pascagoula map
turtle (Graptemys gibbonsi), blackknobbed map turtle (Graptemys
nigrinoda), Alabama map turtle
(Graptemys pulchra), Lower Florida
Keys striped mud turtle (Kinosternon
baurii, pop. 1), Florida Panhandle
Florida red-bellied turtle (Pseudemys
nelsoni, pop. 1), northern red-bellied
cooter (Pseudemys rubriventris), and
Lower Florida Keys eastern ribbonsnake
(Thamnophis sauritus, pop. 1).
The Kirtland’s snake, Barbour’s map
turtle, Escambia map turtle, and
Pascagoula map turtle have a
NatureServe conservation status of G2,
with State rankings varying from
possibly extirpated, to S1, to S2. The
black-knobbed map turtle has a
NatureServe ranking of G3. The
Alabama map turtle has a NatureServe
ranking of G4, but State rankings vary
from S1 to S3. The Florida Keys mole
skink and Lower Florida Keys eastern
ribbonsnake are given a NatureServe
global ranking of T1. The western
chicken turtle is considered secure by
NatureServe with a global ranking of T5.
The Lower Florida Keys striped mud
turtle and the Florida Panhandle
population of the Florida red-bellied
turtle are given a T2 NatureServe
ranking. We proposed to list the striped
mud turtle as endangered on May 19,
1978 (43 FR 21702) but never finalized
the listing. The species was placed on
the category 2 candidate list on
December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58454). The
northern red-bellied cooter is given a
NatureServe ranking of G4 or apparently
stable with State rankings ranging from
S2 (imperiled) to S5 (stable). In addition
to the striped mud turtle, Kirtland’s
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
snake, Florida Keys mole skink, and
Barbour’s map turtle were each prior
Federal category 2 candidate species.
The black-knobbed map turtle was a
prior category 3C candidate species
(taxa that were proven to be more
widespread than was previously
believed and/or those that were not
subject to any identifiable threat).
The petition identified 44 snails and
requested that they be added to the List,
of which 43 are subjects of this finding,
including the following: Manitou
cavesnail (Antrorbis breweri), Blue
Spring hydrobe snail (Aphaostracon
asthenes), freemouth hydrobe snail
(Aphaostracon chalarogyrus), Wekiwa
hydrobe snail (Aphaostracon monas),
dense hydrobe snail (Aphaostracon
pycnus), Clifton Spring hydrobe snail
(Aphaostracon theiocrenetum), acute
elimia (Elimia acuta), mud elimia
(Elimia alabamensis), ample elimia
(Elimia ampla), Lilyshoals elimia
(Elimia annettae), spider elimia (Elimia
arachnoidea), princess elimia (Elimia
bellacrenata), walnut elimia (Elimia
bellula), prune elimia (Elimia
chiltonensis), cockle elimia (Elimia
cochliaris), cylinder elimia (Elimia
cylindracea), nodulose Coosa River
snail (Elimia lachryma), round-rib
elimia (Elimia nassula), caper elimia
(Elimia olivula), engraved elimia (Elimia
perstriata), compact elimia (Elimia
showalteri), elegant elimia (Elimia
teres), cobble elimia (Elimia
vanuxemiana), Ichetucknee siltsnail
(Floridobia mica), Enterprise siltsnail
(Floridobia monroensis), pygmy siltsnail
(Floridobia parva), Ponderosa siltsnail
(Floridobia ponderosa), Wekiwa
siltsnail (Floridobia wekiwae), spiny
riversnail (Io fluvialis), Arkansas
mudalia (Leptoxis arkansasensis),
spotted rocksnail (Leptoxis picta),
smooth mudalia (Leptoxis virgata),
knobby rocksnail (Lithasia curta),
helmet rocksnail (Lithasia duttoniana),
Ocmulgee marstonia (Marstonia
agarhecta), beaverpond marstonia
(Marstonia castor), Ozark pyrg
(Marstonia ozarkensis), magnificant
rams-horn (Planorbella magnifica),
corpulent hornsnail (Pleurocera
corpulenta), shortspire hornsnail
(Pleurocera curta), skirted hornsnail
(Pleurocera pyrenella), domed ancylid
(Rhodacme elatior), and reverse
pebblesnail (Somatogyrus alcoviensis).
These 43 snails each maintain a
NatureServe ranking of either G1,
critically imperiled, or G2, imperiled.
Several are previous Federal category 2
candidates, including the magnificent
rams-horn, beaverpond marstonia,
Ocmulgee marstonia, and the skirted
hornsnail, until that category was
discontinued in 1996.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59843
The petition identified eight stoneflies
and requested that they be added to the
List, including the following: Virginia
stone (Acroneuria kosztarabi), Sevier
snowfly (Allocapnia brooksi), Smokies
snowfly (Allocapnia fumosa), Karst
snowfly (Allocapnia cunninghami),
Tennessee forestfly (Amphinemura
mockfordi), Louisiana needlefly
(Leuctra szczytkoi), Smokies needlefly
(Megaleuctra williamsae), and lobed
roachfly (Tallaperla lobata). The
Virginia stone and Karst snowfly are
assigned a NatureServe global ranking of
G1, critically imperiled. The Sevier
snowfly, Smokies snowfly, Tennessee
forestfly, Louisiana needlefly, Smokies
needlefly, and lobed roachfly are
assigned NatureServe global rankings of
G2.
Lastly, the petition identified 76
vascular plants and requested that they
be added to the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants, of which 75 are
included in this finding, including the
following: Aeschynomene pratensis
(meadow joint-vetch), Alnus maritima
(seaside alder), Amorpha georgiana var.
georgiana (Georgia leadplant or Georgia
indigo bush), Arnoglossum
diversifolium (variable-leaved Indianplantain), Balduina atropurpurea
(purple balduina or purple disk
honeycombhead), Baptisia megacarpa
(Apalachicola wild indigo), Bartonia
texana (Texas screwstem), Boltonia
montana (Doll’s daisy), Calamovilfa
arcuata (rivergrass), Carex brysonii
(Bryson’s sedge), Carex impressinervia
(impressed-nerved sedge), Coreopsis
integrifolia (ciliate-leaf tickseed), Croton
elliottii (Elliott’s croton), Elytraria
caroliniensis var. angustifolia
(narrowleaf Carolina scalystem),
Encyclia cochleata var. triandra (Clamshell orchid), Epidendrum strobiliferum
(Big Cypress epidendrum), Eriocaulon
koernickianum (small-headed
pipewort), Eriocaulon nigrobracteatum
(black-bracked pipewort), Eupatorium
paludicola (a thoroughwort), Eurybia
saxicastellii (Rockcastle wood-aster),
Fimbristylis perpusilla (Harper’s
fimbristylis), Forestiera godfreyi
(Godfry’s privet), Hartwrightia floridan
(Hartwrightia), Helianthus occidentalis
ssp. plantagineus (Shinner’s sunflower),
Hexastylis speciosa (Harper’s heartleaf),
Hymenocallis henryae (Henry’s spiderlily), Hypericum edisonianum (Edison’s
ascyrum), Hypericum lissophloeus
(smooth-barked St. John’s-wort),
Illicium parviflorum (yellow anisetree),
Isoetes hyemalis (winter or evergreen
quillwort), Isoetes microvela (thin-wall
quillwort), Lilium iridollae (panhandle
lily), Lindera subcoriacea (bog
spicebush), Linum westii (West’s flax),
E:\FR\FM\27SEP4.SGM
27SEP4
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
59844
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Lobelia boykinii (Boykin’s lobelia),
Ludwigia brevipes (Long Beach
seedbox), Ludwigia spathulata
(spathulate seedbox), Ludwigia ravenii
(Raven’s seedbox), Lythrum curtissii
(Curtis’s loosestrife), Lythrum flagellare
(lowland loosestrife), Macbridea
caroliniana (Carolina birds-in-a-nest),
Marshallia grandiflora (Large-flowered
Barbara’s-buttons), Minuartia godfreyi
(Godfrey’s stitchwort), Najas filifolia
(narrowleaf naiad), Nufar lutea ssp.
sagittifolia (Cape Fear spatterdock or
yellow pond lily), Nufar lutea ssp.
ulvacea (West Florida cow-lily), Nyssa
ursina (Bear tupelo or dwarf blackgum),
Oncidium undulatum (Cape Sable
orchid), Physostegia correllii (Correll’s
false dragonhead), Potamogeton
floridanus (Florida pondweed),
Potamogeton tennesseensis (Tennessee
pondweed), Ptilimnium ahlesii
(Carolina bishopweed), Rhexia
parviflora (small-flower meadowbeauty), Rhexia salicifolia (panhandle
meadow-beauty), Rhynchospora
crinipes (hairy-peduncled beakbush),
Rhynchospora thornei (Thorne’s
beakbush), Rudbeckia auriculata (eared
coneflower), Rudbeckia heliopsidis
(sun-facing coneflower), Salix floridana
(Florida willow), Sarracenia purpurea
var. montana (mountain purple
pitcherplant), Sarracenia rubra ssp.
gulfensis (Gulf sweet pitcherplant),
Sarracenia rubra ssp. wherryi (Wherry’s
sweet pitcherplant), Schoenoplectus
hallii (Hall’s bulrush), Scuttelaria
ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap),
Sideroxylon thornei (swamp buckhorn
or Georgia bully), Solidago arenicola
(southern racemose goldenrod),
Sporobolus teretifolius (wire-leaved
dropseed), Stellaria fontinalis (water
stitchwort), Symphyotrichum puniceum
var. scabricaule (rough-stemmed aster),
Thalictrum debile (southern
meadowrue), Trillium texanum (Texas
trillium), Tsuga caroliniana (Carolina
hemlock), Vicia ocalensis (Ocala vetch),
Waldsteinia lobata (lobed barrenstrawberry), and Xyris longisepala
(Kral’s yellow-eyed grass). One of the
species petitioned, Solidago plumosa
(Yadkin River goldenrod), is already a
current Federal candidate species and
is, therefore, not considered in this
finding.
On December 11, 2010, the Service
received a second petition from Wild
South to list Tsuga caroliniana
(Carolina hemlock) as endangered under
the Act and to designate critical habitat.
On December 20, 2010, we provided a
response to the petitioners
acknowledging receipt of the petition
and identifying it as a supplementary
petition as Tsuga caroliniana was also
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
included in the CBD petition to list 404
southeastern U.S. species. Wild South
provided additional information on the
species’ life history, status and threats.
Of the 75 vascular plants identified
above, 46 held previous Federal
candidate status, prior to 1996 and the
discontinuance of the category 2 and 3C
classifications. These include the
following: Alnus maritima (seaside
alder), Amorpha georgiana var.
georgiana (Georgia leadplant or Georgia
indigo bush), Balduina atropurpurea
(purple balduina or purple disk
honeycombhead), Baptisia megacarpa
(Apalachicola wild indigo), Bartonia
texana (Texas screwstem), Calamovilfa
arcuata (rivergrass), Carex
impressinervia (impressed-nerved
sedge), Croton elliottii (Elliott’s croton),
Elytraria caroliniensis var. angustifolia
(narrowleaf Carolina scalystem),
Eriocaulon koernickianum (smallheaded pipewort), Fimbristylis
perpusilla (Harper’s fimbristylis),
Hartwrightia floridan (Hartwrightia),
Hexastylis speciosa (Harper’s heartleaf),
Hymenocallis henryae (Henry’s spiderlily), Hypericum edisonianum (Edison’s
ascyrum), Hypericum lissophloeus
(smooth-barked St. John’s-wort),
Illicium parviflorum (yellow anisetree),
Lilium iridollae (panhandle lily),
Lindera subcoriacea (bog spicebush),
Linum westii (West’s flax), Lobelia
boykinii (Boykin’s lobelia), Lythrum
curtissii (Curtis’s loosestrife), Lythrum
flagellare (lowland loosestrife),
Macbridea caroliniana (Carolina birdsin-a-nest), Marshallia grandiflora (Largeflowered Barbara’s-buttons), Minuartia
godfreyi (Godfrey’s stitchwort), Najas
filifolia (narrowleaf naiad), Nufar lutea
ssp. ulvacea (West Florida cow-lily),
Nyssa ursina (Bear tupelo or dwarf
blackgum), Physostegia correllii
(Correll’s false dragonhead),
Potamogetan floridanus (Florida
pondweed), Rhexia parviflora (smallflower meadow-beauty), Rhexia
salicifolia (panhandle meadow-beauty),
Rhynchospora crinipes (hairypeduncled beakbush), Rhynchospora
thornei (Thorne’s beakbush), Rudbeckia
auriculata (eared coneflower),
Rudbeckia heliopsidis (sun-facing
coneflower), Salix floridana (Florida
willow), Sarracenia rubra ssp. wherryi
(Wherry’s sweet pitcherplant),
Scuttelaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee
skullcap), Sporobolus teretifolius (wireleaved dropseed), Stellaria fontinalis
(water stitchwort), Thalictrum debile
(southern meadowrue), Trillium
texanum (Texas trillium), Vicia
ocalensis (Ocala vetch), Waldsteinia
lobata (lobed barren-strawberry), and
Xyris longisepala (Kral’s yellow-eyed
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
grass). The NatureServe global ranking
of these 75 species ranges from
subspecies T1, to T2, to T3 status and
species G1, to G2, to G3, and G4.
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 Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants
(Lists). A species may be determined to
be endangered or threatened 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.
Listing actions may be warranted
based on any of the above factors, singly
or in combination.
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 shall 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.
In making this 90-day finding, we
evaluated whether information
regarding threats to the 374 species, as
presented in the petition and other
information available in our files, is
substantial, thereby indicating that
E:\FR\FM\27SEP4.SGM
27SEP4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
listing any of the species in the
petitioned action may be warranted. Our
evaluation of this information is
presented below. Our review of the
species varied significantly depending
on the amount of information presented
in the petition and the amount of
information available in our files.
Because so little information was
available in our files for many of these
rare, locally endemic species, the
information below summarizes only the
information in the petition, unless noted
otherwise.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Factor A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or
Range
The petition states that all species,
except for one (Oncidium undulatum,
Cape Sable orchid) identified in the
petition are threatened by the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of their habitat or range.
According to the petition, aquatic and
riparian habitats in the Southeast have
been extensively degraded by direct
alterations of waterways such as
impoundment, diversion, dredging and
channelization, and draining of
wetlands, and by land-use activities
such as development, agriculture,
logging, and mining (Benz and Collins
1997; Shute et al. 1997). More than onethird of the petitioned species have
experienced drastic range reductions,
and up to a 90 percent range loss for
many of the petitioned mussels and
snails (Pyne and Durham 1993; Neves et
al. 1997; NatureServe 2008). According
to the petition, because many of the
aquatic species in the Southeast are very
narrow endemics or have experienced a
dramatic range reduction, remaining
populations are now susceptible to
extinction from even relatively minor
habitat losses (Herrig and Shute 2002).
The petition asserts that habitat loss
and degradation are driving the decline
of reptiles, mollusks, and other aquatic
taxa. Buhlman and Gibbons (1997)
found that 36 percent of analyzed
imperiled aquatic reptiles are threatened
because of the ‘‘continuing, cumulative
abuse sustained by river systems,’’ and
that at least 22 southeastern reptile taxa
have declined due to degradation of
rivers and streams. Habitat degradation
and fragmentation is also asserted to be
the primary cause of imperilment for
southeastern mollusks (Neves et al.
1997; Lysne et al. 2008); mammals
(Harvey and Clark 1997); fish (Warren et
al. 1997); and plants (Stein et al. 2000).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
Physical Alteration of Aquatic Habitats
Impoundment
According to the petition, nearly half
of the petitioned species are threatened
by impoundment, including 83 percent
of the fishes and 67 percent of the
mollusks. Dams modify habitat and
aquatic communities both upstream and
downstream of the impoundment
(Winston et al. 1991; Mulholland and
Lenat 1992; Soballe et al. 1992).
Upstream of dams, habitat is flooded
and in-channel conditions change from
flowing to still water, with increased
depth, decreased levels of dissolved
oxygen, and increased sedimentation.
Sedimentation alters substrate
conditions by filling in interstitial
spaces between rocks, which provide
habitat for many species (Neves et al.
1997). Downstream of dams, flow
regime fluctuates (with resulting
fluctuations in water temperature and
dissolved oxygen levels), the substrate is
scoured, and downstream tributaries are
eroded (Schuster 1997; Buckner et al.
2002). Negative ‘‘tailwater’’ effects on
habitat extend many kilometers
downstream (Neves et al. 1997). Dams
fragment habitat of aquatic species by
blocking corridors for migration and
dispersal, resulting in population
isolation and heightened susceptibility
to extinction (Neves et al. 1997). Dams
also preclude aquatic organisms from
escaping polluted waters and accidental
spills (Buckner et al. 2002).
As of the early 1990s, there were 144
major reservoirs in the Southeast,
including 26 in Tennessee, 19 each in
Alabama and North Carolina, and 17 in
Kentucky (Soballe et al. 1992). There are
36 dams on the mainstem and major
tributaries of the Tennessee River
(Neves et al. 1997), resulting in the
impoundment of more than 20 percent
of the Tennessee River and its major
tributaries (Shute et al. 1997). The
Tennessee and Cumberland River
drainages have approximately 70 major
dams and reservoirs (Buckner et al.
2002). Waterways in Alabama have also
been extensively impounded, with 16
major lock and dam structures on six
rivers, 21 hydroelectric power dams,
and over 20 public water supply
impoundments (Buckner et al. 2002).
The Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers in
Georgia and Alabama have been ranked
among the most imperiled rivers in the
nation due to damming (Buckner et al.
2002).
The petition asserts that, in addition
to rivers, damming of streams and
springs is also extensive throughout the
Southeast (Etnier 1997; Morse et al.
1997; Shute et al. 1997). Noss et al.
(1995) reports that practically every
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59845
stream in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain
has been channelized, levied, or
hydrologically altered. Small streams on
private lands are regularly dammed to
create ponds for cattle, for irrigation, for
recreation, and for fishing, with
significant ecological effects due to the
sheer abundance of these structures
(Morse et al. 1997).
In Florida and other Southeast States,
impoundment of large coastal tributaries
has severely curtailed fish spawning
runs (Gilbert 1992). Impoundment
blocks migratory routes of fish and
covers spawning habitat with silt (Etnier
1997). According to the petitioners,
dams and the resultant substrate
changes have imperiled
disproportionately high numbers of
benthic fishes (Warren et al. 1997).
Changes in the fish community
jeopardize the survival of mussels
because mussels are dependent on host
fish to successfully reproduce, with
some species of mussels being
dependent on specific species of fish
(Bogan 1993, 1996). If the fish species
upon which a mussel is dependent to
host its larvae goes extinct, then the
mussel becomes ‘‘functionally extinct,’’
even when there are surviving longlived individuals (Bogan 1993).
Impoundments can also separate mussel
populations from host fish populations,
resulting in the eventual extinction of
the mussel species (Bogan 1993, 1996).
The loss of mussels can in turn
negatively affect fish, because some
species of fish use empty mussel shells
as nest sites (Bennett et al. 2008).
The petition claims that
impoundments are also one of the
primary reasons for the decline in
crustaceans in the Southeast (Schuster
1997), in aquatic insects (Herrig and
Shute 2002), and in forest-associated
bird species, particularly for species
with narrow niches and low tolerance to
disturbance (Dickson 2007).
Dredging and Channelization
According to the petition, dredging
and channelization are extensively
employed throughout the Southeast for
flood control, navigation, sand and
gravel mining, and conversion of
wetlands into croplands (Neves et al.
1997; Herrig and Shute 2002). Many
rivers are continually dredged to
maintain shipping channels (Abell et al.
2002). Dredging and channelization
modify and destroy habitat for aquatic
species by destabilizing the substrate,
increasing erosion and siltation,
removing woody debris, decreasing
habitat heterogeneity, and stirring up
contaminants that settle onto the
substrate (Hart and Fuller 1974;
Williams et al. 1993; Buckner et al.
E:\FR\FM\27SEP4.SGM
27SEP4
59846
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
2002; Bennett et al. 2008).
Channelization can also lead to
headcutting, sedimentation, and actual
removal of mussels from their beds
during dredging operations (Hart and
Fuller 1974; Williams et al. 1993).
The petition also claims that dredging
and channelization also threaten
imperiled fish, reptiles, crustaceans, and
other species. Dredging removes woody
debris, which provides cover and nest
locations for fish such as the
frecklebelly madtom (Bennett et al.
2008). Flood control projects and
channel maintenance operations in
Mississippi threaten aquatic species in
the Yazoo Basin (Jackson et al. 1993),
including the petitioned Yazoo crayfish.
Dredging and channelization are also
known to be the primary reason for
imperilment of southeastern crustaceans
(Schuster 1997), and to contribute to the
decline of southeastern turtles
(Buhlmann and Gibbons 1997). Many of
the imperiled turtle species, including
the highly imperiled map turtles, are
threatened by the removal of woody
debris, on which they depend for
basking.
Water Development and Diversion and
Decreased Water Availability
According to the petition, in the
Southeast, demands for freshwater for
electricity production, irrigation,
agriculture, and industrial and
residential development are increasing
(Herrig and Shute 2002; Hutson et al.
2005; Lysne et al. 2008). Limited water
supply is already a source of conflict in
Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia in
particular, where rapidly growing
metropolitan areas such as Atlanta,
Birmingham, and Nashville have
drastically increased the demand for
water for residential and industrial uses
(Buckner et al. 2002). The construction
of numerous large Confined Animal
Feeding Operations throughout the
Southeast has led to an increased
demand for inter-basin water transfers
(Buckner et al. 2002). Increasing
drought due to global climate change is
expected to exacerbate the threat of
limited water availability to aquatic and
riparian species in southeastern States
(Karl et al. 2009). Water demands to
support gas-fired steam plants for
electricity generation have increased in
the Southeast. These plants require
millions of gallons of water per day, and
return only roughly one-fifth of that
water back to the waterways, and even
this water tends to be thermally
polluted and may be inadequate to meet
the dissolved oxygen needs of aquatic
species (Buckner et al. 2002).
The petition also asserts that surface
diversion of streams threatens
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
southeastern aquatic species (Etnier
1997; Abell et al. 2000; Buckner et al.
2002; Herrig and Shute 2002), and that
an increasing threat to southeastern
species is the growing practice of
damming small headwater streams to
supply water for municipalities
(Buckner et al. 2002). Water
withdrawals reduce base flows,
decreasing habitat availability for
aquatic species, and the reduced water
volume also increases the concentration
of pollutants, posing another threat to
species (Abell et al. 2000; Herrig and
Shute 2002).
According to the petition, in addition
to rivers and streams, many
southeastern springs have been
drastically altered to supply water for
human uses (Etnier 1997). Spring
development and diversion can alter
flow regime and water quality
parameters, lead to substrate
disturbance and erosion, and alter the
substance and composition of vegetative
cover with resultant effects on
freshwater fauna (Shepard 1993; Frest
and Johannes 1995; Frest 2002). An
additional threat to southeastern species
is groundwater overdraft (pumpage of
groundwater in excess of safe yields),
which threatens spring flow and species
that are dependent on consistent spring
flow conditions (Strayer 2006). The
petitioners also assert that the
dewatering of groundwater systems in
the Southeast threatens rare species of
isopods, amphipods, fish, crayfish, and
amphibians that are dependent on stable
spring and cave environments (Herrig
and Shute 2002).
Loss of Wetlands
According to the petition, through the
mid-1980s, wetlands were lost in the
Southeast as a rate of over 385,000 acres
per year (Hefner and Brown 1984). In
Florida alone, more than 9 million acres
of wetlands had been lost by that time
(Cerulean 1991). In Arkansas 6 million
acres of Mississippi Delta wetlands had
been converted to agricultural use by
the mid-1980s (Smith et al. 1984). In the
Lower Mississippi Valley Region, more
than one-third of existing wetlands were
destroyed from 1950 to 1970 (Mitsch
and Gosselink 1986), with over 185,000
acres of wetlands continuing to be lost
annually through the mid-1980s in this
region (Tiner 1984). In Tennessee, up to
90 percent of upland wetlands on the
Highland Rim have been destroyed, as
have more than 90 percent of
Appalachian bogs in the Blue Ridge
Province (Pyne and Durham 1993). The
destruction of pocosins (evergreen shrub
bogs) has been extensive throughout the
Southeast, with greater than 90 percent
loss in Virginia, nearly 70 percent loss
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
in North Carolina, and nearly 70 percent
loss on the Southeastern Coastal Plain
(Noss et al. 1995).
The petition asserts that loss,
degradation, and fragmentation of
wetland habitat have negatively affected
numerous southeastern freshwater
species, and natural wetland habitats
continue to be lost, placing more species
at risk (Dodd 1990; Benz and Collins
1997; Semlitsch and Bodie 1998; Herrig
and Shute 2002). Vegetated permanent
wetlands are among the most
jeopardized habitats in the Southeast,
with the result that fish families that are
dependent on these habitats are
disproportionately imperiled, such as
the pygmy sunfishes (Etnier and Starnes
1991; Cubbage and Flather 1993;
Dickson and Warren 1994; Warren et al.
1994). According to petitioners, wetland
destruction has also destroyed habitat
for many bird species (Dickson 1997);
aquatic reptile species that depend on
standing water habitats (Herrig and
Shute 2002),; and amphibians (LaClaire
1997), such as the Gulf Hammock dwarf
siren (Amphibia Web 2009). Because
many reptile and amphibian
populations exist as metapopulations
that rely on habitat connectivity to
maintain genetic structure and provide
recolonization opportunities in the
event of localized extirpations, habitat
fragmentation and isolation threaten
their regional persistence by cutting off
opportunities for migration and
dispersal and by magnifying the
likelihood of inbreeding depression and
reproductive failure due to random
environmental perturbation (Buhlmann
and Gibbons 1997; Semlitsch and Bodie
1998).
Land Use Activities That Decrease
Watershed Integrity
The petition asserts that southeastern
aquatic species are threatened not only
by direct physical alteration of
waterways, but also by activities in the
watershed that directly or indirectly
degrade aquatic habitats such as
residential, commercial, and industrial
development; agriculture; logging;
mining; alteration of natural fire regime;
and recreation. Land use activities can
alter water chemistry, flow,
temperature, and nutrient and sediment
transport, and can interfere with normal
watershed functioning (Folkerts 1997).
Residential and Industrial Development
and Human Population Growth
According to the petition,
development threatens two-thirds of the
petitioned species. The primary threat
to the petitioned dragonfly, the purple
skimmer, is lakeshore development. The
Waccamaw fatmucket, a petitioned
E:\FR\FM\27SEP4.SGM
27SEP4
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mussel, is threatened primarily by
increasing development in its
watershed. Also, according to the
petition, the Carolina pygmy sunfish,
Chauga crayfish, and many other
petitioned species are also threatened
primarily by development.
The human population nearly
doubled in the Southeast between 1970
and 2000 (Folkerts 1997). Southeastern
states continued to experience
significant human population growth
from 2000 to 2007, with the population
of Georgia increasing by 17 percent,
Florida by 14 percent, North Carolina by
13 percent, South Carolina by 10
percent, Virginia by 9 percent, and
Tennessee by 8 percent (U.S. Census
Bureau 2009). Metropolitan areas in the
Southeast are among the fastest growing
in the nation (Dodd 1997).
Population growth threatens
biodiversity through an increased
demand for food, water, and other
resources. The strong geographic focus
of development around freshwaters
concentrates human ecological impacts
on freshwater ecosystems more than on
any other part of the landscape (Strayer
2006). Throughout the Southeast,
increased development is creating water
supply problems, stressing available
water resources, and polluting aquatic
habitats (Seager et al. 2009). Global
climate change is expected to lead to
fluctuating water supplies in the
Southeast, and in conjunction with
increasing human demand for
freshwater, to place many aquatic at
heightened risk of extinction (Karl et al.
2009).
The petition asserts that urbanization
and residential, commercial, and
industrial development threaten aquatic
species in both direct and indirect ways.
Habitat is directly lost and fragmented
through land conversion and through
water withdrawal and diversion (Benz
and Collins 1997). Predation increases
as populations of pets and synanthropic
species ecologically associated with
humans increase (Marzluff et al. 2001).
Point-source pollution from industry
and runoff from parking lots, roofs,
roads, and lawns degrade water quality
and have lethal and sub-lethal effects on
aquatic species. Urban runoff is
associated with declines in
macroinvertebrate diversity and with
decreased mussel growth rates, and
urban land use classes are associated
with impairment of fish and
macroinvertebrate communities (Soucek
et al. 2003; Carlisle et al. 2008).
Amphibians and reptiles are
particularly threatened by development.
Siltation and leachate from road runoff
can be lethal to larval amphibians and
other aquatic organisms (Dodd 1997).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
The construction of roads increases
mortality and leads to population
isolation and the disruption of the
metacommunity structure on which the
long-term population persistence of
many herptile species depends
(Buhlman and Gibbons 1997). Noise and
light from roads and developments can
interfere with behavior patterns and
disrupt breeding and feeding activities,
particularly for amphibians (Dodd
1997). Amphibian species’ richness is
lower in urbanized areas, as many
species cannot persist in urbanized sites
(Delis 1993; Herrig and Shute 2002).
According to the petition, habitat loss
and degradation due to development is
generally permanent and poses an
increasing threat to southeastern aquatic
species. Folkerts (1997) reports that
particularly in the Southeast,
development threatens aquatic species
more than in other areas due to lax
enforcement of environmental laws in
the region.
Recreation
According to the petition, the
increased human population is
increasing the demand for recreational
developments and activities. Housing
developments, strip malls, and resorts
are being constructed in very rural
areas, and small towns are now
burgeoning in previously undeveloped
areas in the Southeast including, the
Knoxville-Chattanooga suburban
corridor, on the Cumberland Plateau, in
the Cahaba River headwaters outside
Birmingham, and in the Mobile-Tensaw
Delta (Buckner et al. 2002). Many
rapidly developing small communities
are constructing dams on headwater
streams, often in areas that were
recently remote and inaccessible, with
resultant impacts on aquatic species
(Buckner et al. 2002). The development
of housing and recreational facilities on
lakeshores and in riparian areas results
in the degradation of water quality and
aquatic habitat (Tennessen 1997). For
example, Morse et al. (1997) report the
loss of rare stonefly species in a stream
in North Carolina following the
development of summer homes.
The petition asserts that recreational
developments and activities threaten
aquatic species by fostering air and
water pollution, litter, and potentially
high densities of recreationists (Houston
1971; White and Bratton 1980).
Recreation can cause trampling of
organisms and vegetation (Little 1975).
Local habitat changes caused by
trampling include simplification of
vegetation and soil compaction, which
can result in overall loss of habitat
diversity (Speht 1973; Liddle 1975). Offroad vehicle use can lead to severe
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59847
degradation of aquatic and riparian
habitats through trampling of organisms,
destruction of vegetation, erosion, and
degraded water quality (Wuerthner
2007). According to the petitioners, offroad vehicle use threatens imperiled
mussels (Hanlon and Levine 2004) and
reptiles (Herrig and Shute 2002).
Southeastern aquatic species are also
alleged by the petitioners to be
threatened by other forms of motorized
recreation, such as motorized boats and
jet skis, which cause oil and gas
contamination and bank erosion
(Buckner et al. 2002). Garber and Burger
(1995) also document the extirpation of
a turtle population in a protected area
due to occasional poaching.
Decreased water quality, trampling, or
other recreational impacts purportedly
threaten 22 percent of the petitioned
species including the Bigcheek cave
crayfish, Blue Spring hydrobe snail, and
small-flower meadow-beauty.
Logging
The petition asserts that southeastern
aquatic and riparian species are
threatened by the loss of forests and the
negative effects of these losses on water
quality and aquatic habitats that result
from logging activities and canopy
removal. The Southeast now supplies
nearly 70 percent of the nation’s pulp
and paper products (Buckner et al.
2002). According to Folkerts (1997), the
rate of deforestation in the Southeast at
that time exceeded that of any tropical
area of comparable size. The Tennessee,
Cumberland, and Mobile basins have
experienced a drastic increase in large
clearcutting operations and chip mills,
with 1.2 million acres of forest being cut
annually to supply 150 regional chip
mills, two-thirds of which have been
built since the 1980s (Buckner et al.
2002). In the area surrounding Great
Smoky Mountain National Park, the rate
of logging doubled from 1980 to 1990
(Folkerts 1997). Of the 70 million acres
of longleaf pine forest which once
covered over 40 percent of the
Southeastern Coastal Plain, only 1 to 2
percent remains, and the remnant
acreage is fragmented and ‘‘poorlymanaged’’ (Noss et al. 1995; Dodd
1997). Clearcutting on the Coastal Plain
has affected ‘‘virtually every aquatic
habitat in the area’’ (Folkerts 1997).
According to the petition, logging has
many direct and indirect negative
effects on aquatic biota across taxa.
Erosion from poor forestry practices
degrades water quality (Williams et al.
1993). Increased sedimentation from
logging can suffocate aquatic snails and
their eggs, preclude their ability to feed,
and extirpate populations (Frest and
Johannes 1993). Increased
E:\FR\FM\27SEP4.SGM
27SEP4
59848
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
sedimentation is also harmful to
freshwater mussels (Neves et al. 1997).
Clearcutting and conversion of
deciduous forests to pine plantations
increases sedimentation and reduces the
input of large woody debris and leaf
litter into streams, which are necessary
to provide microhabitat and food for
aquatic organisms (Morse et al. 1997;
Herrig and Shute 2002). Clearcutting
can lead to the disappearance of
caddisflies and mayflies, with
ramifications at higher levels of the food
web (Morse et al. 1997). Amphibian
diversity and abundance is reduced by
clearcutting and the conversion of
deciduous forests to pine plantations
(Dodd 1997; Herrig and Shute 2002).
Aquatic-breeding amphibians, which
depend on ephemeral ponds or which
are dependent on forested habitats to
complete their life cycle or both, are
particularly threatened by logging
activities (Dodd 1997). Herbicides used
after timber harvests also negatively
affect amphibians and other aquatic
organisms (Dodd 1997; Herrig and Shute
2002).
According to the petition, 51 percent
of the petitioned species are threatened
by logging. Logging is the primary threat
to the newly discovered patch-nosed
salamander, and to many of the
petitioned crayfishes, including the
Irons Fork burrowing crayfish, Kisatchie
painted crayfish, and pristine crayfish.
The petitioners assert that logging also
threatens the petitioned dragonflies,
including Westfall’s clubtail and the
Ozark emerald.
Agriculture and Aquaculture
According to the petition,
southeastern aquatic species are also
threatened by the loss and degradation
of habitat due to poor agricultural
practices. Intensive agriculture began in
the Southeast in the 1930s, and
agriculture continues to extensively
impact southeastern aquatic ecosystems
(Neves et al. 1997). The petitioners
assert that agriculture in the Southeast
has a tremendous impact on aquatic
habitats both due to the extent of
farmland and to farming practices
(Buckner et al. 2002; Herrig and Shute
2002). In the Tennessee, Cumberland,
and Mobile River basins, for example,
farms cover nearly half the landscape.
Throughout the Southeast, fields are
commonly plowed to the edges of
waterways, causing sedimentation and
bank collapse and facilitating the runoff
of fertilizers and pesticides (Buckner et
al. 2002). Both traditional farming
practices and confined animal feeding
operations contribute to water quality
degradation and the imperilment of
indigenous biota in the Southeast
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
through erosion, sedimentation, and
chemical and nutrient pollution from
point and non-point sources (Patrick
1992; Morse et al. 1997; Neves et al.
1997; Herrig and Shute 2002).
According to the petition, 50 percent
of the petitioned species are threatened
by conversion of their habitat to
agricultural use or by agricultural
runoff, including the striated darter,
Logan’s agarodes caddisfly, Sevier
snowfly, and Tennessee clubtail.
Agricultural land uses have been
associated with impairment of fish and
macroinvertebrate communities (Herrig
and Shute 2002), communities of
freshwater mollusks (Williams et al.
1993; Neves et al. 1997), and threats to
imperiled amphibians (Herrig and Shute
2002).
Many of the petitioned species are
allegedly threatened from confined
animal feeding operations (CAFOs),
including the Carolina madtom,
corpulent hornsnail, and the Neuse
River waterdog. Confined animal
feeding operations and feedlots have
caused extensive degradation of
southeastern aquatic ecosystems (Neves
et al. 1997; Buckner et al. 2002; Mallin
and Cahoon 2003). The number of
CAFOs in the Southeast has increased
drastically since 1990, as livestock
production has undergone extensive
industrialization (Buckner et al. 2002;
Mallin and Cahoon 2003). Alabama and
Arkansas are now the nation’s leading
poultry producers, with Florida,
Georgia, and Kentucky also among the
top 10 States for poultry production
(U.S. Census Bureau 2009). Poultry
CAFOs are also abundant in North
Carolina, Mississippi, and Virginia
(Mallin and Cahoon 2003). There are
extensive swine CAFOs in the North
Carolina Coastal Plain, and North
Carolina is now the nation’s second
largest pork producer (Mallin and
Cahoon 2003; U.S. Census Bureau
2009). Confined animal feeding
operations threaten aquatic species both
because of the vast amounts of fresh
water necessary to support their
operation and due to pollution (Buckner
et al. 2002). Confined animal feeding
operations house thousands of animals
and produce a large amount of waste,
which enters the environment either by
being directly discharged into streams
or constructed ditches, stored in open
lagoons, or applied to fields in wet or
dry form (Buckner et al. 2002; Mallin
and Cahoon 2003; Orlando et al. 2004).
Confined animal feeding operation
wastes contain nutrients,
pharmaceuticals, and hormones, and
result in eutrophication (a choking of
waters by excessive algae growth which
has been stimulated by fertilizers or
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
sewage) of waterways, toxic blooms of
algae and dinoflagellates, and endocrine
disruption in downstream wildlife
(Mallin and Cahoon 2002; Orlando et al.
2004).
Both livestock holding lots and
landscape grazing degrade habitats in
the Southeast, according to the
petitioners (Buckner et al. 2002; Herrig
and Shute 2002). Several southeastern
States produce large amounts of cattle
and horses feeding them via both
grazing and holding lots (Buckner et al.
2002; U.S. Census Bureau 2009).
Livestock are generally allowed to wade
directly into streams, trampling habitat
and resulting in erosion and nutrient
contamination (Buckner et al. 2002).
The effects of livestock grazing on
stream and riparian ecosystems are well
documented and include negative
effects on water quality and quantity,
channel morphology, hydrology, soils,
instream and streambank vegetation,
and aquatic and riparian wildlife
(Belsky et al. 1999). According to Frest
(2002), snails and their habitats are
harmed through direct trampling, soil
compaction, erosion, water siltation and
pollution, and drying up of springs and
seeps. The petitioners claim that 14
percent of the petitioned species are
threatened by grazing, including the
Virginia stone (stonefly), Barrens darter,
Cherokee clubtail (dragonfly), and many
plants, including the eared coneflower.
The petition alleges that aquaculture
poses an additional threat to aquatic
species in the Southeast. According to
Tucker and Hargreaves (2003), catfish
farming is the largest aquaculture
enterprise in the United States, with 95
percent of production occurring in
Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and
Mississippi. Similarly, crayfish farming
in Louisiana is the nation’s second
largest aquaculture enterprise, with over
49,000 hectares of crayfish ponds
(Holdich 1993). According to the
petitioners, aquaculture threatens
aquatic habitats through habitat
conversion; the withdrawal, diversion,
or impoundment of natural waterways
to support operations; and the release of
effluent to waterbodies (Naylor et al.
2001). Water quality degradation
threatens southeastern aquatic insect
populations (Herrig and Shute 2002).
Impoundments and diversions alter
water chemistry and flow, and can be
detrimental to native mollusks and
fishes (Morse et al. 1997; Neves et al.
1997). The construction of shrimp farms
in wetlands and estuaries also destroys
and degrades habitat for native aquatic
species (Hopkins et al. 1995).
E:\FR\FM\27SEP4.SGM
27SEP4
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Mining and Oil and Gas Development
According to the petition, mining for
coal, gravel, limestone, phosphate, iron,
and other raw materials poses a dire
threat to many aquatic species in the
Southeast (Dodd 1997; Buckner 2002),
and 29 percent of the petitioned species
are threatened by mining and oil and
gas development. Extensive strip mining
for coal occurs in West Virginia,
Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, and
Alabama (Dodd 1997). As of 2004, more
than 1.1 million acres of land in
Appalachia were undergoing active
mining operations (Loveland et al.
2003), and the EPA projects that from
1992 to 2013, 761,000 acres of
Appalachian forest will be lost to
surface coal mining (Pomponio 2009).
Up to 23 percent of the land area of
some counties in Kentucky and West
Virginia has been permitted for surface
coal mining (U.S. Government
Accountability Office 2009). Mining
increases the potential for extreme
flooding events, and reclamation does
not restore pre-mining hydrologic
characteristics or ecological functions
(Townsend et al. 2009).
Mining often occurs directly through
streams or ponds, and mine wastes are
pushed directly into streams and rivers
(Dodd 1997; EPA 2005). From 1992 to
2002, more than 1,200 miles of
Appalachian streams were buried or
degraded by mountaintop removal coal
mining (EPA 2005). This figure does not
incorporate the thousands of miles of
downstream reaches that have been
substantially degraded by sedimentation
and chemical pollution from coal
mining (Palmer and Bernhardt 2009;
Pomponio 2009; Palmer et al. 2010).
According to the petitioners, in the
Clinch and Powell watersheds of
southwestern Virginia, where the
highest concentration of imperiled
species in the continental United States
occurs (Stein et al. 2000), there were 287
active coal-mining point source
discharges as of 2002 (Diamond et al.
2002), which are degrading habitat for
imperiled species (Ahlstedt et al. 2005).
The petitioners allege that 30 of the
petitioned species are specifically
threatened by mountaintop removal.
Coal mining negatively impacts
aquatic species through direct habitat
destruction, decreased water
availability, variations in flow and
thermal gradients, and chronic and
acute pollution of surface and ground
water (FWS 1996; Neves et al. 1997;
Houp 1993; Pond et al. 2008; Palmer
and Bernhardt 2009; Pomponio 2009;
Wood 2009; Palmer et al. 2010).
Pollution from mining adversely
impacts invertebrates and vertebrates,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
and leads to less diverse and more
pollution-tolerant species (Naimo 1995;
Cherry et al. 2001; EPA 2005; Lemly
2009; Pomponio 2009). The petitioners
allege that surface coal mining and
associated road building increase
human access to imperiled species,
which can lead to poaching and
contribute to the spread of invasive
species (FWS 1996). Surface coal
mining also causes long-term changes in
land use and local ecology, and
threatens the long-term viability of
populations due to habitat
fragmentation (FWS 1996).
The petition alleges that coal mining
negatively impacts diatoms (a major
group of algae) and macroinvertebrates
(Serveiss 2001; Locke et al. 2006;
Carlisle et al. 2008; Pond et al. 2008),
amphibian diversity and abundance
(EPA 2005; Wood 2009; Palmer and
Bernhardt 2009), and the index of fish
biotic integrity (Diamond and Serveiss
2001). The petition states that coal
mining is also reported to cause
reproductive failure in riparian birds
(Lemly 1985; Ohlendorf 1989).
According to the petition, other forms
of mining and oil and gas development
are also causing severe degradation of
aquatic habitats: In-stream gravel
mining and rock removal fragment and
destroy habitat for aquatic insects,
crayfish, mussels, and fish (Buckner et
al. 2002); and sand and gravel mining
have been associated with both on- and
off-site mussel extirpation (Hartfield
1993), and with decreased downstream
mussel growth rates (Yokley 1976). The
petitioners allege that many species are
threatened by sand and gravel mining,
including the cobblestone tiger beetle,
bluestripe darter, hellbender
(salamander), and many mussels and
snails. Historic phosphate and iron
mines resulted in precipitous declines
in mussel populations (Ortmann 1924).
Mining of industrial minerals such as
kaolin, mica, and feldspar also results in
loss and degradation of habitat for
aquatic species (Tennessee Valley
Authority 1971; EPA 1977; Duda and
Penrose 1980). The petition alleges that
kaolin mining threatens the petitioned
mussel, the Alabama spike, and the
petitioned fish, the robust redhorse, and
that oil and gas development threatens
many of the petitioned mussels.
Factor B. Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The petition stated that all 15
amphibians petitioned (13 of which are
subjects of this finding) were threatened
by overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; in addition this factor
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59849
threatens 1 beetle (Cobblestone tiger
beetle), 2 birds (Florida sandhill crane
and black rail), 1 butterfly (rare skipper),
1 crayfish (Big Blue Springs Cave
crayfish), 2 dragonflies (Septima’s
clubtail and Appalachian snaketail), 5
fish (northern cavefish, Carolina pygmy
sunfish, robust redhorse, orangefin
madtom, and bluehead shiner), 6
mussels (brook floater, brother spike,
Suwannee moccasinshell, Tennessee
clubshell, warrior pigtoe, and pyramid
pigtoe), 11 reptiles (Kirtland’s snake,
western chicken turtle, Florida Keys
mole skink, Barbour’s map turtle,
Escambia map turtle, Pascagoula map
turtle, black-knobbed map turtle,
Alabama map turtle, striped mud
turtle—lower Florida Keys, Florida redbellied turtle—Florida panhandle, and
northern red-bellied cooter), and 7
vascular plants (Baptisia megacarpa,
Epidendrum strobiliferum,
Hymenocallis henryae, Illicium
parviflorum, Lilium iridollae, Oncidium
undulatum, and Sarracenia purpurea
var. montana).
The petition alleges overutilization is
the primary threat for the hellbender
salamander, which is commonly killed
by fishermen. Collection for the pet
trade threatens a few of the petitioned
fishes, crayfishes, and amphibians.
Historical overuse greatly threatened
many of the petitioned mussels, fishes,
and the Florida sandhill crane.
Throughout the Southeast, reptiles are
exploited for use as pets or food, or are
killed for recreational purposes, which
may all cause significant population
declines. The petitioners allege that
many southeastern turtle species, such
as the Florida red-bellied turtle,
Pascagoula map turtle, Barbour’s map
turtle, and black-knobbed map turtle,
are threatened by over-collection
because they are commonly harvested
for food, the pet trade, or recreation.
Several southeastern turtle species are
being driven to extinction by
unregulated commercial harvest. The
petition alleges that the States of
Arkansas, Kentucky, Georgia, Louisiana,
and Tennessee allow unlimited harvest
of freshwater turtles. The international
trade in turtles for use as food, as pets,
or in traditional medicine is extensive
and largely unregulated (Buhlman and
Gibbons 1997; Sarma 1999). Records
indicate that the trade in live turtles
from the United States to China is
thousands of tons per year. The
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency
reports that more than 25,000 turtles
were reported as harvested in Tennessee
from 2006 to 2007. Overutilization of
imperiled turtle species is especially
problematic because the reproductive
E:\FR\FM\27SEP4.SGM
27SEP4
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
59850
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
success of long-lived reptile species is
dependent on high adult survivorship,
and population declines occur when
adults are harvested (Brooks et al. 1991;
Heppell 1998; Pough et al. 1998;
Congdon et al. 1993, 1994).
Over-collection and recreational
killing are also a threat to some
southeastern snake and lizard species
(Gibbons et al. 2000; Herrig and Shute
2002). The Kirtland’s snake, and the
Florida Keys mole skink are all
threatened by over collection
(NatureServe 2008).
The petition alleges that southeastern
mussels are also threatened by
overutilization, although to a lesser
extent than in the past (Neves et al.
1997). The harvest of southeastern
mussels for commercial purposes is well
documented (Anthony and Downing
2001; Williams et al. 2008). Mussels are
collected for their pearls, meat, and
shells, and many populations of mussels
have been depleted by harvest in the
last 200 years (Strayer 2006). Although
mussel fisheries targeted abundant
species, the historical bycatch of rare
species was likely substantial (Strayer
2006). Mussel collections declined by
mid-century, but a resurgence in the
commercial harvest has occurred since
the 1960s to supply nucleus seeds for
the cultured pearl trade (Ward 1985;
Williams et al. 1993). In 1991 and 1992,
570 tons of shells were harvested from
the Wheeler Reservoir on the Tennessee
River (Williams et al. 2008). Most
harvested mussels are common species,
but bycatch remains a threat to native
mussels.
Imperiled native mussels are
threatened not only by the amount of
harvest, but also by the method used to
collect shells, which when conducted
non-selectively, can result in substantial
bycatch of non-target species and
juveniles (Williams et al. 1993).
Although unwanted mussels are thrown
back, Sickel (1989) found that mortality
of undersized mussels that are thrown
back may be as high as 50 percent. Very
rare species of mussels are also
threatened by over-collection from shell
collectors and biologists for biological
collections. Overutilization for
biological collections may have
contributed significantly to the decline
of the Suwannee moccasinshell
(NatureServe 2008).
Other southeastern taxa are also
threatened by overexploitation,
including fish, amphibians, crayfish,
butterflies, and plants. Amphibians are
threatened by over-collection for use as
food, for the pet trade, and for the
biological and medicinal supply
markets (Dodd 1997; Amphibia Web
2009). Southeastern fish and crayfishes
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
are vulnerable to overutilization.
Crayfishes are threatened by collection
for use as bait or food (Herrig and Shute
2002). The Carolina pygmy sunfish
(Elassoma boelhkei) is threatened by
over-collection for the pet trade
(NatureServe 2008). Collection of
invertebrates for bait or the pet trade can
deplete populations (Strayer 2006).
Collection also threatens the rare
skipper (Problema bulenta)
(NatureServe 2008). White et al. (2002)
documented the removal of an entire
population of Panhandle lily (Lilium
iridollae) from the Conecuh National
Forest by horticultural collectors.
The petition alleges that the impacts
of overutilization compound the threats
facing imperiled southeastern species
whose populations have already been
reduced due to habitat loss or other
factors. Overutilization may drive
species that are already struggling to
survive to extinction.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
The petition stated that disease or
predation threatened 11 amphibians
addressed in this finding (streamside
salamander, one-toed amphiuma,
hellbender, Cumberland dusky
salamander, seepage salamander,
Chamberlain’s dwarf salamander,
Oklahoma salamander, Tennessee cave
salamander, West Virginia Spring
salamander, Georgia blind salamander,
and Neuse River waterdog), 3 birds
(MacGillivray’s seaside sparrow, Florida
sandhill crane, and black rail), 8 fish
(Carolina pygmy sunfish, candy darter,
paleback darter, Shawnee darter,
Barrens topminnow, robust redhorse,
Carolina madtom, and bluehead shiner),
1 mammal (Sherman’s short-tailed
shrew), 6 mussels (Tennessee
heelsplitter, Cumberland moccasinshell,
Tennessee clubshell, Tennessee pigtoe,
purple lilliput, and Savannah lilliput), 6
reptiles (Kirtland’s snake, Barbour’s
map turtle, Escambia map turtle,
Pascagoula map turtle, Florida redbellied turtle, and northern red-bellied
cooter), and 6 vascular plants (Lilium
iridollae (Panhandle lily), Najas filifolia
(narrowleaf naiad), Rudbeckia
auriculata (eared coneflower),
Schoenoplectus hallii (Hall’s bulrush),
Sideroxylon thornei (swamp buckhorn
or Georgia bully), Tsuga caroliniana
(Carolina hemlock)).
Disease
According to the petition, the spread
of disease has contributed to the decline
of aquatic species globally and in the
southeastern United States (Daszak et al.
1999; Corser 2000; Gibbons et al. 2000;
Cunningham et al. 2003). Amphibians,
in particular, have been decimated by
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the spread of disease (Kiesecker et al.
2004). Numerous diseases are
contributing to amphibian declines,
including infections of fungi
(Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis
‘‘chytrid’’; Saprolegnia), ranavirises,
iridovirises, mesomycetozoea, protozoa,
helminthes, and undescribed diseases
(Dodd 1997; Daszak et al. 1999; Briggs
et al. 2005; Davis et al. 2007; Peterson
et al. 2007). Chytrid fungus affects not
only frogs but has also now been
reported in both aquatic and terrestrial
salamanders (Davidson et al. 2003;
Cummer et al. 2005; Padgett-Flohr and
Longcore 2007). The decline of map
turtles, musk turtles, snapping turtles,
and pond turtles is partially attributable
to disease (Dodd 1988; Buhlmann and
Gibbons 1997). Southeastern freshwater
fishes are also threatened by diseases,
which are being spread by aquaculture
operations and in shipments between
fish hatcheries (Kautsky et al. 2000;
Naylor et al. 2001; Strayer 2006; Green
and Dodd 2007).
The petition alleges that other threats
exacerbate the vulnerability of
southeastern aquatic fauna to disease
and population decline. The hellbender,
which is threatened by both habitat loss
and overuse, is also threatened by
disease. Reptile declines have also been
attributed to disease (Diemer Berish et
al. 2000; Gibbons et al. 2000). In
freshwater fishes, stress-related diseases
are prevalent in polluted rivers, where
chronic, sub-lethal pollution has
increased the susceptibility of
organisms to infection (Moyle and Leidy
1992).
Predation
According to the petition, predation
threatens several of the petitioned
species, including reptiles, amphibians,
birds, plants, fishes, crayfishes, and
mollusks. Heavy predation of turtle
nests by raccoons can be a primary
factor limiting recruitment of imperiled
turtle populations (Browne and Hecnar
2007). At least two of the petitioned bird
species are threatened by predation.
MacGillivray’s seaside sparrow is
threatened by predation from rice rats
(Post and Greenlaw 1994). The black rail
is threatened from predation from
various species during high tides, when
the rails are forced away from cover
(Evans and Page 1986). Two of the
petitioned plant species are threatened
by predation. Hall’s bulrush is
threatened by predation from mute
swans and Canada geese (McKenzie et
al. 2007). The Panhandle lily is
threatened by predation from cattle
grazing and potentially by insect
herbivory (Barrows 1989). Southeastern
fishes, amphibians, and crayfishes are
E:\FR\FM\27SEP4.SGM
27SEP4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
threatened by predation from native and
nonnative fishes and crayfishes
(NatureServe 2008). The streamside
salamander is threatened by predation
from fish, flatworms, and water snakes
(Petranka 1983; AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Predation can contribute heavily to the
decline of imperiled mussels because of
their restricted distributions and small
population sizes (NatureServe 2008,
Rock pocketbook species account).
Imperiled southeastern mussels are
threatened by predation from fishes,
muskrats, raccoons, otter, mink, turtles,
and some birds (Neves and Odom 1989;
Parmalee 1967; Snyder and Snyder
1969). A number of fish species,
including catfishes (Ictalurus ssp. and
Amieurus ssp.) and freshwater drum
(Aplodinotus grunniens) consume large
numbers of unionid mussels at certain
life stages (NatureServe 2008). As
populations of imperiled mussels
continue to decline, predation becomes
an increasing threat. For example, the
only viable population of the Savannah
lilliput in North Carolina is threatened
by predation from raccoons (Hanlon and
Levine 2004). According to the petition,
the petitioned fish, Barrens topminnow,
is threatened by predation from
introduced mosquitofish.
Disease and predation, alone and in
conjunction with other factors, pose
serious threats to the survival of many
of the petitioned species and are
magnified by other environmental
stressors such as habitat loss, pollution,
invasive species, and climate change
(Gibbons et al. 2000; Pounds et al.
2006).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
The petition states that inadequate
regulatory mechanisms threaten all the
petitioned species, with the following
five exceptions: Linda’s roadsideskipper, least crayfish, Broad River
spiny crayfish, Chowanoke crayfish, and
Tallapoosa orb.
Inadequacy of Existing Federal
Regulatory Mechanisms
According to the petition, the Federal
Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq.) provides a basic level of water
quality protection for imperiled
southeastern species, but is inadequate
to ensure their continued survival.
Pollution from point and non-point
sources is causing ongoing degradation
of water quality, current water quality
standards are not effectively protecting
sensitive species or sensitive
developmental stages of species, and
loss of stream and wetland habitat
continues. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and individual
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
States regulate point sources of
pollution under the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES),
under which point sources are licensed
and maximum pollutant discharge
concentrations are set. The NPDES
system is not adequate to protect the
petitioned species from the negative
effects of pollution because permits may
be issued with few restrictions,
cumulative effects of all the point
sources within a watershed are not
taken into consideration when permits
are issued, and State governments often
lack the resources or political will to
monitor and enforce permits (Buckner et
al. 2002).
The petition claims that existing
regulations are also inadequate to
protect aquatic species from non-point
sources of pollution such as
agricultural, residential, and urban
runoff. Agricultural runoff accounts for
over 70 percent of impaired U.S. river
kilometers, yet is largely exempt from
permitting requirements (Neves et al.
1997). Existing regulatory mechanisms
are also inadequate to protect
southeastern aquatic species from
accidental spills from retention ponds,
which are used to store wastes from
agriculture, coal-fired power plants, coal
mining, and other activities (Herrig and
Shute 2002), and to prevent the
continued loss of stream and wetland
habitat from fills. In Appalachia, from
1992 to 2002, the EPA permitted the
filling of more than 1,200 miles of
headwater streams for surface coal
mining activities (EPA 2005). The
permitted filling of streams for surface
coal mining is causing permanent
downstream pollution and loss of
biodiversity (Neves et al. 1997; Pond et
al. 2008; Pomponio 2009; Wood 2009;
Palmer et al. 2010).
The permitted filling of wetlands is
also ongoing. While section 404 of the
CWA sets as a goal no net loss of
wetlands, this is not a required outcome
of permit decisions (Connolly et al.
2005). In fiscal year 2003, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers issued 4,035 permits
for the destruction of natural wetlands,
while denying only 299 permits
(Connolly et al. 2005). Lost wetlands are
required to be replaced by mitigation
wetlands, but mitigation wetlands often
differ in structure, function, and
community composition from the
natural wetlands that are destroyed
(Holland et al. 1995). Mitigation
requirements are also not strictly
enforced. Mitigation is rarely effective
in preserving biodiversity (Cabbage et
al. 1993; Water Environment Federation
1993). Many species of amphibians,
reptiles, and insects require both
wetland and upland habitat to complete
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59851
their life cycles, and wetland protection
criteria do not protect the upland
habitats these species need to survive
(Dodd 1997).
The petition alleges that the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977 (SMCRA) (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.)
does not adequately protect aquatic
species due to increased demands for
coal, lax enforcement of environmental
laws, and deference to economic
development over species’ protection.
Sedimentation from active mines is a
primary contributor to the decline of
mollusks due to water quality
degradation, shell erosion, and
reproductive failure (Anderson 1989;
Houp 1993; Neves et al. 1993).
Reclamation required under SMCRA is
not rigorously enforced (Ward 2009),
and even when reclamation is
conducted, it has not resulted in the
restoration of pre-mining hydrologic
characteristics or ecological functions
(Townsend et al. 2009).
The petition alleges that management
of National Wildlife Refuges, National
Recreation Areas, National Forests, and
Wild and Scenic Rivers fails to
adequately protect the petitioned
species for a variety of reasons,
including lack of fiscal resources,
threats from climate change, invasive
species, recreation, poaching, and
conflicting resource mandates (such as
timber production and recreation).
Inadequacy of Existing State Regulatory
Mechanisms
According to the petition, some of the
petitioned species are listed as
endangered or threatened by State fish,
wildlife, and game departments, but
State endangered and threatened species
designations generally do not provide
species with meaningful regulatory
protections or with any habitat
protection. Many of the species
petitioned are classified as Species of
Conservation Priority or Species of
Greatest Conservation Need under State
Wildlife Action Plans or Wildlife
Conservation Strategies. These
documents provide a framework for
conservation, but are not regulatory
documents and do not contain
mandatory or enforceable provisions to
protect species or their habitats. Further,
the implementation of conservation
strategies is dependent on the
cooperation of resource managers and
stakeholders, making their
implementation and effectiveness
uncertain.
State conservation priorities and
initiatives are also sharply limited by
funding, with charismatic and game
species generally receiving the majority
of resources, and the focus generally
E:\FR\FM\27SEP4.SGM
27SEP4
59852
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
being on vertebrates, which makes these
priorities and initiatives inadequate to
protect imperiled invertebrate species.
Additionally, some States have
regulations to protect some wildlife
from direct take, but these regulations
are not comprehensive, are generally
poorly enforced, and are not adequate to
protect wildlife from other threats (FWS
1997).
Other Regulatory Mechanisms and
Protections
According to the petition, the
Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (CITES) conveys some degree of
protection to a few of the petitioned
species listed under it, but it is
inadequate to ensure their continued
survival. For example, highly soughtafter species such as rare map turtles are
threatened by the international pet trade
despite being protected under CITES
(NatureServe 2008). Likewise, habitat
preserves alone are insufficient to
protect imperiled species. While habitat
protection is an essential component of
species’ preservation, threats from a
host of other factors, including climate
change, poaching, pollution, and genetic
isolation due to lack of habitat
connectivity, influence habitat
conditions and the success of the
preservation efforts.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Land Ownership Patterns
The majority of land in the Southeast
is privately owned. Private land use is
either not regulated or only loosely
regulated throughout much of the region
(Buckner et al. 2002). According to the
petition, most southeastern forests are in
private ownership, and forestry best
management practices to control erosion
and protect aquatic resources are not
mandated or voluntarily followed in the
majority of southeastern forests. In
addition, extensive clearcutting and
poor logging practices threaten aquatic
resources due to sedimentation,
landslides, and degraded water quality
(Buckner et al. 2002).
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting the Species’ Continued
Existence
The petition states that other natural
or manmade factors, including
pollution, global climate change,
drought, invasive species, and synergies
between multiple threats, threatened 13
of 15 amphibians, 1 amphipod
(tidewater amphipod), 1 beetle (Avernus
cave beetle), 3 birds (MacGillivray’s
seaside sparrow, Florida sandhill crane,
and black rail), 4 butterflies (Linda’s
roadside-skipper, Duke’s skipper,
Palatka skipper, and rare skipper), 2
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
caddisflies (Morse’s little plain brown
sedge and setose cream and brown
mottled microcaddisfly), 43 of 83
crayfish, 3 dragonflies (Cherokee
clubtail, Septima’s clubtail,
Appalachian snaketail), 43 of 47 fish, 3
mammals (Pine Island oryzomys or
marsh rice rat, Sanibel Island oryzomys
or marsh rice rat, insular cotton rat), 1
moth (Louisiana eyed silkmoth), 35 of
48 mussels, 3 non-vascular plants
(Fissidens appalachensis (Appalachian
fissidens moss), Fissidens hallii (Hall’s
pocket moss), and Phaeophyscia leana
(Lea’s bog lichen)), 9 reptiles (Kirtland’s
snake, western chicken turtle, Florida
Keys mole skink, Escambia map turtle,
Pascagoula map turtle, black-knobbed
map turtle, Alabama map turtle, striped
mud turtle, northern red-bellied cooter),
27 of 44 snails, 1 stonefly (Smokies
needlefly), and 31 of 76 vascular plants.
Pollution
According to the petition, pollution
threatens two-thirds of the petitioned
species, including 81 percent of the
wildlife. Southeastern waterways are
degraded by point and non-point source
pollution from a variety of sources
including agriculture, forestry, urban
and suburban development, coal
mining, and coal combustion wastes.
Non-point source pollution, or runoff, is
difficult to document, but its impact on
aquatic species is both pervasive and
persistent (Schuster 1997). Non-point
source pollution is the most common
factor adversely impacting the nation’s
fish communities, with more than 80
percent of fish negatively affected (Judy
et al. 1982). Both non-point and point
source pollution are pushing
southeastern aquatic species towards
extinction by carrying sediments,
contaminants, nutrients, and other
pollutants into waterways.
Sedimentation, Contamination, and
Nutrient Loading
The petition alleges sedimentation is
one of the primary causes of habitat
degradation in southeastern waterways
(Neves et al. 1997). Sedimentation and
siltation result from a variety of
activities including agriculture, forestry,
development, and mining, with silt
reaching the waterways during both
ground-disturbing activities and storm
events (FWS 2000). Suspended
sediments threaten the entire aquatic
community, from fish to invertebrates to
birds.
In the Southeast, sedimentation is
responsible for nearly 40 percent of fish
imperilment problems (Etnier 1997). It
both directly and indirectly adversely
affects fish. Suspended sediments cut
and clog gills and interfere with
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
respiration. Sedimentation blocks light
penetration, which interferes with
feeding for species like minnows and
darters, which feed by sight (Etnier and
Starnes 1993). For species that feed by
flipping over rocks and consuming the
disturbed insects, sedimentation
increases the embeddedness of rocks,
making them more difficult to move and
decreasing habitat suitability for aquatic
invertebrate prey (Etnier and Starnes
1993). Sedimentation also interferes
with feeding behavior for nocturnal
feeders like catfish and imperiled
madtoms, which catch aquatic insects
by relying on the sensitivity of their
barbells and on chemoreceptors, both of
which are negatively affected by
sedimentation (Todd 1973; Buckner et
al. 2002). Benthic species require
specific substrate conditions for
spawning, feeding, and cover, all of
which are degraded by sedimentation
(Etnier and Starnes 1993; Warren et al.
1997). When sedimentation fills in the
crevices between and beneath rocks, it
decreases the availability of cover for
resting and predator evasion (Herrig and
Shute 2002). Madtoms, darters, suckers,
and some minnows deposit their eggs
on or near the substrate, and
sedimentation interferes with their
reproduction both by decreasing habitat
suitability and by directly smothering
eggs. Benthic fishes are also negatively
affected by toxins stored in sediments
(Reice and Wohlenberg 1993).
Ultimately, excessive sedimentation can
eliminate fish species from an area by
rendering their habitat unsuitable (FWS
2000).
Similarly, excessive sedimentation
has strong, persistent, negative effects
on freshwater invertebrates (Strayer
2006). Siltation is one of the primary
factors implicated in the decline of
freshwater mollusks (Williams et al.
1993). Suspended sediments have both
direct and indirect negative effects on
mollusks. Sedimentation clogs the gills
of mollusks and can cause suffocation
(FWS 2000). Sedimentation reduces
feeding efficiency both by interfering
with respiration of filter feeders and by
coating algae, which snails scrape from
rocks (FWS 2000). Decreased visibility
due to sedimentation can interfere with
mussel reproduction by making it
difficult for host fishes to detect
glochidia (Neves et al. 1997).
Sedimentation also reduces substrate
suitability (Herrig and Shute 2002).
The petition also alleges that aquatic
insects are threatened by excessive
sediment levels. Stoneflies (Plecoptera)
and mayflies (Ephemeroptera) are
intolerant of siltation and disappear
from impacted streams (Morse et al.
1997). Increased siltation impacts the
E:\FR\FM\27SEP4.SGM
27SEP4
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
ability of dragonflies and damselflies to
survive (Morse et al. 1997). Caddisflies,
which require spaces among rocks for
shelter and stable surfaces for grazing,
are also negatively impacted by siltation
(Morse et al. 1997). Sedimentation and
other pollutants from mountaintopremoval coal mining operations are
extirpating aquatic macroinvertebrate
communities. In some streams that
drain mountaintop-removal operations,
entire orders of Plecoptera and
Ephemeroptera have been extirpated
(Wood 2009). Sedimentation is also
negatively impacting rare ground-water
inhabiting species of isopods and
amphipods (Herrig and Shute 2002).
According to the petition, in addition
to sediments, contaminants such as
heavy metals, pesticides, and persistent
organic pollutants threaten aquatic
species. In a nationwide assessment of
streambed sediment contaminants, the
EPA found that 43 percent of sediments
are probably associated with harmful
effects on aquatic life or human health,
and that 6 to 10 percent of streambed
sediment is sufficiently contaminated to
cause significant lethality to benthic
organisms (EPA 2004b). Southeastern
rivers are laden with a variety of toxic
chemicals, with the lower Mississippi
River receiving contaminants from half
the continent (Folkerts 1997).
Contaminants have both lethal and sublethal negative effects on aquatic species
and may interfere with immunity,
growth, and reproduction (Colborn et al.
1993; Gibbons et al. 2000). Selenium
contamination from surface coal mining
is causing teratogenic (developmental
malformations) deformities in larval fish
(Palmer et al. 2010). The negative effects
of many contaminants will persist for
centuries (Folkerts 1997).
Aquatic species are threatened both
by chronic low-level contaminant
pollution and acute exposure from
accidental spills. For example, in 2009,
a wastewater spill from a coal mine on
the West Virginia-Pennsylvania border
killed all the fish, salamanders, and
mussels in 35 miles of 38-mile-long
Dunkard Creek (Hopey 2009). Endemic
species are particularly at high risk from
accidental spills. Because many aquatic
species exist only in small, isolated
populations, a single spill event could
drive a species to extinction.
The petition alleges that contaminants
threaten all taxa of aquatic species.
Declines in many fish species are
attributed to chronic, sub-lethal
pollution, which causes reduced
growth, reduced reproductive success,
and increased risk of death from stressrelated diseases (Moyle and Leidy
1992). Cave fishes and other species that
are directly dependent on groundwater
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
levels are disproportionately threatened
by contaminants that become
concentrated if there is a reduction in
the volume of springflow (Herrig and
Shute 2002). Chemoreception in blind
cave fishes can be disrupted by
contaminants from surface aquifer
recharge areas (Herrig and Shute 2002).
Chronic low-level exposure to
contaminants may be preventing the
recovery of imperiled species of
mollusks (FWS 1997). Juvenile mussels
are sensitive to heavy metals and other
pollutants (Naimo 1995; Neves et al.
1997). Amphibians are particularly
sensitive to contaminants as all life
stages are sensitive to toxins
(AmphibiaWeb 2009). Many substances
can be toxic to amphibians including
heavy metals, pesticides, phenols,
fertilizers, road salt, mining waste, and
chemicals in runoff (Dodd 1997).
Changes in pH can adversely affect
amphibian eggs and larvae, and can
inhibit growth and feeding in adults
(Dodd 1997). Amphibians are
threatened by accidental and intentional
pesticide treatments.
Contaminants negatively impact
aquatic species at the level of
individuals, populations, and species.
Fish, turtles, and other aquatic animals
assimilate pesticides, heavy metals, and
other persistent pollutants into their
tissues (Buhlman and Gibbons 1997; de
Solla and Fernie 2004). Animals at
higher levels of the food chain can
accumulate considerable levels of
toxins. Significant concentrations of
numerous contaminants have been
detected in southeastern freshwater
turtles including pesticides such as:
aldrin, chlordane,
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT),
dieldrin, endrin, mirex, nonachlor, and
toxaphene; and metals such as:
Aluminum, barium, cadmium,
chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead,
mercury, molybdenum, nickel,
¨
strontium, and zinc (Meyers-Schone and
Walton 1994). Contaminant exposure
can disrupt normal endocrine
functioning, threatening reproduction
and survival (Colborn et al. 1993).
Turtles exposed to polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) have exhibited sex
reversal and abnormal gonadal
development, and alligators exposed to
various contaminants have shown
altered testosterone levels and gonadal
abnormalities (Guillette et al. 1994,
1995). Water snakes in wetlands that
have been contaminated with coal ash
exhibit altered metabolic activity
(Hopkins et al. 1999). Endocrine
disruption caused by contaminants can
lead to demographic shifts in aquatic
reptile populations (Gibbons et al.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59853
2000). Bioaccumulation of contaminants
has contributed to the decline of map
turtles, musk turtles, snapping turtles,
and pond turtles (Buhlmann and
Gibbons 1997).
The petition alleges that nutrient
loading also threatens southeastern
aquatic species. Excessive nitrates and
phosphates entering waterways from
point and non-point sources can lead to
algal blooms, eutrophication, and
depleted dissolved oxygen, which can
be lethal to aquatic organisms (Mallin
and Cahoon 2003). Some algal blooms
are toxic and can cause direct mortality.
The toxic dinoflagellates (Pfiesteria
piscicida and P. shumwayae) have
bloomed downstream of CAFOs in the
Neuse, New, and Pamlico River
estuaries in North Carolina (Mallin and
Cahoon 2003). Even at sub-lethal levels,
nutrient loading threatens aquatic
species via many mechanisms. For
example, excessive phosphate levels,
especially in combination with the
herbicide atrazine, have been shown to
increase nematode infections in
amphibians, leading to amphibian
deformities (Johnson and Sutherland
2003; Rohr et al. 2008).
Sources of Nutrients, Contaminants,
Sediments, and Other Pollutants
The petition claims that agriculture,
forestry, urban and industrial
development, coal mining and
processing, and coal combustion all
contribute to nutrient loading,
contaminants, sediments, and other
pollutants that make their way into
southeastern waterways. In the
Southeast, agricultural fields are
commonly plowed to the edge of rivers
and streams, which results in erosion
and stream bank collapse and deposits
tons of soil into waterways annually.
Agricultural runoff carries sediment,
pesticides, fertilizers, animal wastes,
pathogens, salts, and petroleum
particles into waterways.
The petition claims that atrazine is
the most commonly detected pesticide
in U.S. waters and is pervasively found
in surface waters of the southern States,
with the chemical being detected in
every watershed sampled (EPA 2007;
Wu et al. 2009). According to the
petition, concentrations of atrazine in
various southeastern waterways exceed
levels harmful to non-vascular plants
and aquatic biota (U.S. EPA 2007; Wu
et al. 2009). The toxic and endocrinedisrupting effects of atrazine are well
established (Wu et al. 2009) and include
detrimental reproductive effects.
According to the petition, animal
holding lots and CAFOs produce animal
wastes that may be discharged directly
into streams applied to agricultural
E:\FR\FM\27SEP4.SGM
27SEP4
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
59854
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
fields, or stored in lagoons (Buckner et
al. 2002). These wastes contain
enormous amounts of nitrogen and
phosphorus, and these nutrients enter
the environment and contribute to the
eutrophication of waterbodies via
runoff, via volatilization of ammonia, or
by percolating into groundwater (Mallin
and Cahoon 2003). Extreme weather
events, lax management, and lagoon
ruptures have led to acute pollution
events from CAFOs, which have
resulted in fish kills and algal blooms
(Mallin and Cahoon 2003). Decaying
carcasses from these operations also
produce a significant source of nutrient
pollution. In addition to nutrient
loading, CAFOs release pharmaceuticals
(growth promoters and antibiotics) and
hormones (estrogens and androgens)
into aquatic habitats (Orlando et al.
2004). These have led to endocrine
disruption in female turtles (Irwin et al.
2001), and disruption of the
reproductive biology of fathead
minnows (Pimephales promelas)
(Orlando et al. 2004).
The petition asserts that wastewater
from aquacultural facilities also
contributes significant amounts of
sediments, nutrients, pharmaceuticals,
and pathogens to southeastern aquatic
habitats (Tacon and Forster 2003).
Catfish farms, trout farms, and shrimp
and crayfish ponds all release nutrients
to aquatic habitats when they are
drained or flushed during large rain
events (Tucker and Hargreaves 2003;
Morse et al. 1997; Holdich 1993).
According to the petition, pollution
from forestry and silviculture affects the
Mobile Basin. Logging and effluent from
pulp mills contribute sediments and
herbicides to waterways, degrading
habitat for aquatic organisms. Erosion
from deforestation and poor forestry
practices increases silt loading and
makes stream bottoms unstable, both of
which threaten mollusks and other
aquatic organisms (Williams et al.
1993). Herbicides used to kill
hardwoods and herbaceous vegetation
may be harmful to amphibians and
other species (Dodd 1997), and some
herbicides are toxic to algae and
interfere with aquatic ecology (Austin et
al. 1991).
Urban and industrial development is
also cited in the petition as contributing
to pollution of southeastern aquatic
habitats. Point source pollution from
manufacturing sites, power plants, and
sewage treatment plants is a major cause
of aquatic habitat degradation (Morse et
al. 1997). Non-point source pollution in
the form of runoff from urban and
industrial areas contributes sediment,
contaminants, nutrients, and other
pollutants that can be harmful to aquatic
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
organisms and their habitats, including
petroleum particles, highway salts, silt,
fertilizers, pesticides, surfactants, and
pet wastes (Neves et al. 1997; Buckner
et al. 2002).
The petition states that coal mining
and processing are a major source of
pollution in West Virginia, Kentucky,
Tennessee, Virginia, Alabama, and
Georgia. Contaminants from coal mining
and processing include sediments,
metals, hydraulic fluids, frothing agents,
modifying reagents, pH regulators,
dispersing agents, flocculants, and
media separators (Ahlstedt et al. 2005).
Sediments, heavy metals, and other
pollutants from mining are one of the
causal factors in mussel declines (Houp
1993; Neves et al. 1997; Locke et al.
2006). Heavy metals, including
aluminum, cadmium, copper, iron,
manganese, mercury, selenium, sulfate,
and zinc, are released into the
environment and act as metabolic
poisons in freshwater species (Earle and
Callaghan 1998), and cause weight loss,
altered enzyme activity and filtration
rates, and behavioral modifications
(Naimo 1995). The effects of metals on
mussel feeding, growth, and
reproduction can result in significant
consequences for mussel populations,
and Naimo (1995) concludes that the
chronic, low-level exposure to toxic
metals is partially responsible for the
widespread decline in species diversity
and population density of freshwater
mussels. Selenium is particularly
prevalent in coal effluents and is
associated with deformities and
reproductive failure in aquatic species
(Lemly 2009; Pomponio 2009).
The petition also asserts that
pollution, including sediments, metals,
acids, and other substances, in drainage
from abandoned mined lands negatively
impacts aquatic species in a variety of
ways from acute toxicity to physical
impacts from solid precipitants (Cherry
et al. 2001; Soucek et al. 2003). Surface
waters receiving mine discharge
commonly have extremely low pH
levels, below 3.0, with toxic impacts
extending several miles downstream
(Soucek et al. 2003).
Coal combustion produces nitric and
sulfuric acids, mercury, and coal ash,
that all negatively impact aquatic
species (Fleischer et al. 1993). Nitric
and sulfuric acids released from coalfired power plants cause acidification of
water bodies. Streams and lakes in Great
Smoky Mountains National Park and
elsewhere have been degraded by acid
precipitation (Morse et al. 1997).
Phytoplankton is negatively affected by
acidification, which has ramifications
throughout the food web (Dodd 1997).
Acid precipitation harms caddisflies
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and stoneflies (Morse et al. 1997). The
petition claims that several of the
petitioned insects, including the
Smokies snowfly and Smokies
needlefly, are threatened by acid
deposition. Acidity in aquatic habitats
can also result in direct amphibian
mortality, and plays a major role in
limiting amphibian distribution (Dodd
1997).
Coal combustion also releases
mercury into the environment.
Atmospheric deposition of mercury is
responsible for the contamination of
most waterways. In a U.S. Geological
Survey study that examined mercury in
fish, sediments, and water drawn from
291 rivers and streams, detectable
mercury contamination was found in
every single fish sampled (Scudder et al.
2009). The highest concentrations
among all sampled sites occurred in fish
from blackwater coastal-plain streams
draining forested lands or wetlands in
Louisiana, Georgia, Florida, and North
and South Carolina, and from basins in
the west with gold or mercury mines or
both. Mercury levels in fish at over 70
percent of the sites exceeded the levels
of concern for the protection of fish
eating-mammals.
The combustion of coal produces over
129 million tons of solid waste, or coal
ash, annually (Eilperin 2009). Coal ash
contains concentrated levels of chlorine,
zinc, copper, arsenic, lead, selenium,
mercury, and other toxic contaminants,
and improper storage of coal
combustion waste has resulted in
pollution of ground and surface waters
(EPA 2007b). There are 44 coal ash
ponds in Kentucky alone. Hopkins et al.
(1999) reported behavioral,
developmental, and metabolic
abnormalities in amphibians and
reptiles in wetlands that have been
contaminated with coal combustion
waste in South Carolina.
Global Climate Change and Drought
According to the petition, global
climate change threatens all of the
petitioned species. Climate models
project both continued warming in all
seasons across the Southeast, and an
increase in the rate of warming (Karl et
al. 2009). The warming in air and water
temperatures will create stress for fish
and wildlife. Increasing water
temperatures and declining dissolved
oxygen levels in streams, lakes, and
shallow aquatic habitats will lead to fish
kills and loss of aquatic species
diversity (Folkerts 1997; Karl et al.
2009). Climate change will alter the
distribution of native plants and
animals and will lead to the local loss
of imperiled species and the
E:\FR\FM\27SEP4.SGM
27SEP4
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
displacement of native species by
invasives (Karl et al. 2009).
Climate change will increase both the
incidence and severity of droughts and
major storm events in the Southeast
(Karl et al. 2009). The percentage of the
Southeast region experiencing moderate
to severe drought has already increased
over the past 3 decades (Karl et al.
2009). The threat to aquatic ecosystems
posed by drought is magnified both by
climate change and by human
population growth. Decreased water
availability coupled with human
population growth will further stress
natural systems. Drought, and increased
evaporation and evapotranspiration due
to warmer temperatures, will lead to
decreased groundwater recharge and
potential saltwater intrusion in shallow
aquifers in many parts of the Southeast,
further exacerbating threats to aquatic
organisms (Karl et al. 2009).
Intense drought and increasing
temperatures resulting from climate
change will cause the drying of water
bodies and the local or global extinction
of riparian and aquatic species (Karl et
al. 2009). Declines of mollusks as a
direct result of drought have already
been documented (Golladay et al. 2004;
Haag and Warren 2008). Populations of
amphibians dependent on consistent
rainfall patterns for breeding, such as
those that breed in temporary ponds,
could be extirpated by drought (Dodd
1997). Amphibian declines are already
linked to climate change globally
(Pounds et al. 2006) and in the
southeastern United States (Daszak et al.
2005).
The warming climate will likely cause
ecological zones to shift upward in
latitude and altitude, and species’
persistence will depend upon, among
other factors, their ability to disperse to
suitable habitat (Peters and Darling
1985). Human modifications to
waterways, such as dams, and changes
to the landscape, including extensive
development, will make dispersal of
species to more suitable habitat difficult
to impossible (Strayer 2006; Buhlman
and Gibbons 1997; FWS 2009). Many
species of freshwater invertebrates are
likely to go extinct due to climate
change (Strayer 2006). Freshwater
mussels and snails are capable of
moving only short distances and are
unlikely to be able to adjust their ranges
in response to climatic shifts (FWS
2009). The petitioners allege that
deteriorating habitat conditions and
obstacles to dispersal place all of the
petitioned species at risk of extinction
due to global climate change.
According to the petition, several of
the coastal petitioned species are
threatened by sea level rise and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
increased storm intensity resulting from
global climate change, including the
Florida Keys mole skink, MacGillivray’s
seaside sparrow, and Louisiana eyed
silkmoth.
Invasive Species
The petition alleges that invasive
species are a major threat to native
aquatic plants and animals in the
Southeast, and a known threat for 96 of
the petitioned species. Invasive species
negatively affect native species through
competition, predation, and disease
introduction. Introduced Asian carp,
which are used to control trematodes in
catfish ponds, have become established
in rivers throughout the Mississippi
Basin, where they consume native
mollusks and compete for resources
with native fishes (Naylor et al. 2001).
There are at least 30 species of invasive
fish in the Tennessee and Cumberland
River basins, including carp, alewife,
rainbow and brown trout, striped bass,
yellow perch, nonnative forms of
muskellunge, and walleye (Etnier 1997).
Nonnative mosquitofish (Gambusia
holbrooki) have been widely introduced
for vector control and now compete
with native species for resources
(Buckner et al. 2002). Game fish, such
as trout and bass, have been widely
introduced and prey on native fish,
invertebrates, and amphibians (Herrig
and Shute 2002; Kats and Ferrer 2003;
Strayer 2006). Native fish fauna in
southern Florida have been displaced by
tropical species, and more than 60
indigenous southeastern fish species
have been introduced to drainages
where they are not native (Warren Jr. et
al. 1997).
According to the petition, freshwater
mollusks are threatened both by
invasive fish and invasive mollusks.
The introduction of nonnative fishes
such as the round goby has indirect
negative effects on native mussels due
to negative impacts on their host fishes
(NatureServe 2009). The invasion of
nonindigenous mollusks is one of the
primary reasons for the decline of
freshwater mussels (Williams et al.
1993). Invasive mussels can reach
densities of thousands per square meter,
outcompeting and literally covering
native species (Williams et al. 1993).
The zebra mussel has been detected in
Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee,
Virginia, and West Virginia
(NatureServe 2009). Zebra mussels
infest most major Mississippi River
tributaries, including the Ohio,
Tennessee, Cumberland, and Arkansas
Rivers (NatureServe 2009), and are
expected to spread to all the navigable
rivers in the Southeast, as well as
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59855
tributary reservoirs and smaller streams
(Jenkinson and Todd 1997). Zebra
mussels and other invasive mollusks
compete with native mussels for food
and space, attach to native mussels and
weaken or kill them, and alter the
suitability of the substrate for native
species (Herrig and Shute 2002). Where
zebra mussels establish large
populations, they are likely to destroy
native mussels and snail populations
(Jenkinson and Todd 1997).
The petition alleges that native
southeastern mollusks are also
threatened by the invasion of the Asian
clam. Asian clams spread rapidly
throughout every major drainage in the
South following their introduction in
the 1960s. Asian clams compete with
native mussels for space and food.
The petition asserts that other
southeastern taxa, in addition to fish
and mollusks, are also threatened by the
spread of invasive species. Native
crayfish are threatened by invasive
mussels, which can attach to their
exoskeletons, and by invasive species of
crayfish and fish, which compete with
and prey on native crayfish (Schuster
1997). Nonnative crayfish are commonly
introduced via ‘‘bait buckets.’’ Several
species of nonnative snails have also
invaded the Southeast (Neves et al.
1993). Native amphibians are threatened
by invasive fish and invasive
amphibians, which can act as predators,
competitors, and disease vectors (Dodd
1997). Additionally, the petition asserts
that exotic cattle egrets, armadillos, and
wild hogs can ‘‘exact a substantial toll’’
on amphibians (Dodd 1997). Fire ants
also threaten amphibians, as they have
been known to kill metamorphosing
individuals (Freed and Neitman 1988).
According to the petition, many
invasive plant species are wreaking
havoc on aquatic habitats in the
Southeast. Species such as
Myriophyllum spicatum (Eurasian
watermilfoil), Alternanthera
philoxeroides (alligatorweed), Hydrilla
verticillata (hydrilla), and Eichhornia
crassipies (water hyacinth) are thriving
in aquatic and wetland habitats and
negatively impacting native species
(Folkerts 1997; Buckner et al. 2002).
Invasive plants displace native plants,
alter substrate availability for aquatic
invertebrates, and interfere with the
food web (Folkerts 1997). Invasive
plants threaten several of the petitioned
plants, including Baptisia megacarpa
(Apalachicola wild indigo), Ptilimnium
ahlesii (Carolina bishopweed), and
Hexastylis speciosa (Harper’s heartleaf).
Outbreaks of invasive and native
forest-destroying insects have weakened
and killed trees in riparian areas and
reduced nutrient inputs to aquatic
E:\FR\FM\27SEP4.SGM
27SEP4
59856
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
systems (Morse et al. 1997). The
petitioned Tsuga caroliniana (Carolina
hemlock) is threatened by hemlock
woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae).
Streamside habitat degradation due to
exotic pests also threatens aquatic insect
populations in the Southeast due to
altered microhabitat conditions (Herrig
and Shute 2002).
Inherent Vulnerability of Small, Isolated
Populations
According to the petition, 224 of the
petitioned species now exist in
primarily small, isolated populations,
which heightens their risk of extinction.
Small, isolated populations are
vulnerable to extirpation due to limited
gene flow, reduced genetic diversity,
and inbreeding depression (Lynch
1996). Population isolation also
increases the risk of extinction from
stochastic genetic and environmental
events, including drought, flooding, and
toxic spills (FWS 2009). Habitat
modification and cumulative habitat
degradation from non-point source
pollution are also major threats for
species that exist in isolated
populations. Due to blocked avenues of
dispersal or limited dispersal ability,
isolated populations gradually
disappear as habitat conditions
deteriorate (FWS 2000).
Synergies and Multiple Causes
The petition alleges that the risk of
extinction for the petitioned species is
heightened by synergies between threats
as most species face multiple threats
and these threats interact and magnify
each other. Across taxa, interactions
among threats place southeastern
aquatic biota at increased risk of
extinction. Reptiles are threatened by
habitat loss and degradation, invasive
species, pollution, disease and
parasitism, unsustainable use, global
climate change, and synergies between
these factors (Gibbons et al. 2000).
Freshwater snails are threatened by the
combined effects of habitat loss,
pollution, drought, and invasive species
(Lydeard et al. 2004). Likewise,
amphibians are imperiled by multiple,
interacting threats. Stress from the
effects of increased UV-b radiation,
pollution, and climate change has made
amphibians more vulnerable to the
spread of disease (Gendron et al. 2003;
Pounds et al. 2006). The interaction
between climate change and
compromised immunity due to various
stressors threatens both amphibian
populations and entire species (Green
and Dodd 2003). Similarly, threats to
freshwater fish are ‘‘many, cumulative
and interactive,’’ and fish extirpation is
nearly always attributable to multiple
human impacts (Warren et al. 1997).
Any factor that causes the decline of the
host fishes on which mussels depend
for reproduction also threatens the
mussels, which themselves face
multiple threats including
impoundment, pollution, and invasive
species (Neves et al. 1997). The petition
claims that because of the multifaceted
ecological relationships among species,
the extirpation of a species can have
effects that cascade throughout the
community, highlighting the need to
protect entire communities
simultaneously.
Summary of Threats as Identified in the
Petition
TABLE 2—THREATS FOR THE 374 SPECIES AS CLASSIFIED BY THE PETITIONERS
Factor
Scientific name
Common name
Taxon
A
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Ambystoma barbouri .....................
Amphiuma pholeter .......................
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis .......
Desmognathus abditus ..................
Desmognathus aeneus ..................
Eurycea chamberlaini ....................
Eurycea tynerensis ........................
Gyrinophilus palleucus ..................
Gyrinophilus subterraneus .............
Eurycea wallacei ............................
Necturus lewisi ..............................
Pseudobranchus
striatus
lustricolus.
Urspelerpes brucei ........................
Crangonyx grandimanus ...............
Crangonyx hobbsi ..........................
Stygobromus cooperi .....................
Stygobromus indentatus ................
Stygobromus morrisoni ..................
Stygobromus parvus ......................
Cicindela marginipennis ................
Pseudanophthalmus avernus ........
Pseudanophthalmus cordicollis .....
Pseudanophthalmus egberti ..........
Pseudanophthalmus hirsutus ........
Pseudanophthalmus hubbardi .......
Pseudanophthalmus hubrichti .......
Pseudanophthalmus intersectus ...
Pseudanophthalmus limicola .........
Pseudanophthalmus montanus .....
Pseudanophthalmus pontis ...........
Pseudanophthalmus potomaca .....
Pseudanophthalmus
praetermissus.
Pseudanophthalmus sanctipauli ....
Pseudanophthalmus sericus .........
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Sep 26, 2011
B
C
D
E
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Streamside Salamander ...............
One-Toed Amphiuma ....................
Hellbender .....................................
Cumberland Dusky Salamander ...
Seepage Salamander ...................
Chamberlain’s Dwarf Salamander
Oklahoma Salamander .................
Tennessee Cave Salamander ......
West Virginia Spring Salamander
Georgia Blind Salamander ............
Neuse River Waterdog (salamander).
Gulf Hammock Dwarf Siren ..........
Amphibian
Amphibian
Amphibian
Amphibian
Amphibian
Amphibian
Amphibian
Amphibian
Amphibian
Amphibian
Amphibian
Amphibian ..........................
X
X
..........
X
X
Patch-nosed Salamander .............
Florida Cave Amphipod ................
Hobb’s Cave Amphipod ................
Cooper’s Cave Amphipod .............
Tidewater Amphipod .....................
Morrison’s Cave Amphipod ...........
Minute Cave Amphipod ................
Cobblestone Tiger Beetle .............
Avernus Cave Beetle ....................
Little Kennedy Cave Beetle ..........
New River Valley Cave Beetle ......
Cumberland Gap Cave Beetle ......
Hubbard’s Cave Beetle .................
Hubricht’s Cave Beetle .................
Crossroad’s Cave Beetle ..............
Madden’s Cave Beetle ..................
Dry Fork Valley Cave Beetle ........
Natural Bridge Cave Beetle ..........
South Branch Valley Cave Beetle
Overlooked Cave Beetle ...............
Amphibian ..........................
Amphipod ...........................
Amphipod ...........................
Amphipod ...........................
Amphipod ...........................
Amphipod ...........................
Amphipod ...........................
Beetle .................................
Beetle .................................
Beetle .................................
Beetle .................................
Beetle .................................
Beetle .................................
Beetle .................................
Beetle .................................
Beetle .................................
Beetle .................................
Beetle .................................
Beetle .................................
Beetle .................................
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
Saint Paul Cave Beetle .................
Silken Cave Beetle .......................
Beetle .................................
Beetle .................................
X
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
X
..........
..........
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27SEP4.SGM
27SEP4
59857
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—THREATS FOR THE 374 SPECIES AS CLASSIFIED BY THE PETITIONERS—Continued
Factor
Scientific name
Common name
Taxon
A
Pseudanophthalmus thomasi ........
Pseudanophthalmus virginicus ......
Ammodrammus
maritimus
macgillivraii.
Grus canadensis pratensis ............
Laterallus jamaicensis ...................
Amblyscirtes linda ..........................
Euphyes dukesi calhouni ...............
Euphyes pilatka klotsi ....................
Problema bulenta ..........................
Agarodes logani .............................
Hydroptila sykorae .........................
Lepidostoma morsei ......................
Oecetis parva ................................
Oxyethira setosa ............................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Triaenodes tridontus ......................
Bouchardina robisoni .....................
Cambarus cryptodytes ...................
Cambarus obeyensis .....................
Cambarellus blacki ........................
Cambarellus diminutus ..................
Cambarellus lesliei ........................
Cambarus bouchardi .....................
Cambarus chasmodactylus ...........
Cambarus chaugaensis .................
Cambarus coosawattae .................
Cambarus cracens ........................
Cambarus cymatilis .......................
Cambarus eeseeohensis ...............
Cambarus elkensis ........................
Cambarus extraneus .....................
Cambarus fasciatus .......................
Cambarus georgiae .......................
Cambarus harti ..............................
Cambarus jezerinaci ......................
Cambarus jonesi ............................
Cambarus nerterius .......................
Cambarus parrishi .........................
Cambarus pristinus ........................
Cambarus scotti .............................
Cambarus speciosus .....................
Cambarus spicatus ........................
Cambarus strigosus .......................
Cambarus unestami ......................
Cambarus veteranus .....................
Cambarus williami .........................
Distocambarus carlsoni .................
Distocambarus devexus ................
Distocambarus youngineri .............
Fallicambarus burrisi .....................
Fallicambarus danielae ..................
Fallicambarus gilpini ......................
Fallicambarus harpi .......................
Fallicambarus hortoni ....................
Fallicambarus petilicarpus .............
Fallicambarus strawni ....................
Hobbseus cristatus ........................
Hobbseus orconectoides ...............
Hobbseus petilus ...........................
Hobbseus yalobushensis ...............
Orconectes blacki ..........................
Orconectes eupunctus ...................
Orconectes hartfieldi ......................
Orconectes incomptus ...................
Orconectes jonesi ..........................
Orconectes maletae ......................
Orconectes marchandi ..................
Orconectes packardi ......................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Sep 26, 2011
B
C
D
E
Thomas’s Cave Beetle ..................
Maiden Spring Cave Beetle ..........
MacGillivray’s Seaside Sparrow ...
Beetle .................................
Beetle .................................
Bird .....................................
X
X
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
X
X
X
..........
..........
X
Florida Sandhill Crane ..................
Black Rail ......................................
Linda’s Roadside-skipper ..............
Duke’s Skipper ..............................
Palatka Skipper .............................
Rare Skipper .................................
Logan’s Agarodes Caddisfly .........
Sykora’s Hydroptila Caddisfly .......
Morse’s Little Plain Brown Sedge
Little Oecetis Longhorn Caddisfly
Setose Cream and Brown Mottled
Microcaddisfly.
Three-toothed
Triaenodes
Caddisfly.
Bayou Bodcau Crayfish ................
Dougherty Plain Cave Crayfish .....
Obey Crayfish ...............................
Cypress Crayfish ...........................
Least Crayfish ...............................
Angular Dwarf Crayfish .................
Big South Fork Crayfish ................
New River Crayfish .......................
Chauga Crayfish ...........................
Coosawattae Crayfish ...................
Slenderclaw Crayfish ....................
Conasauga Blue Burrower ............
Grandfather Mountain Crayfish .....
Elk River Crayfish .........................
Chickamauga Crayfish ..................
Etowah Crayfish ............................
Little Tennessee Crayfish .............
Piedmont Blue Burrower ...............
Spiny Scale Crayfish .....................
Alabama Cave Crayfish ................
Greenbrier Cave Crayfish .............
Hiwassee Headwater Crayfish ......
Pristine Crayfish ............................
Chattooga River Crayfish ..............
Beautiful Crayfish ..........................
Broad River Spiny Crayfish ...........
Lean Crayfish ................................
Blackbarred Crayfish .....................
Big Sandy Crayfish .......................
Brawleys Fork Crayfish .................
Mimic Crayfish ..............................
Broad River Burrowing Crayfish ...
Newberry Burrowing Crayfish .......
Burrowing Bog Crayfish ................
Speckled Burrowing Crayfish ........
Jefferson County Crayfish ............
Ouachita Burrowing Crayfish ........
Hatchie Burrowing Crayfish ..........
Slenderwrist Burrowing Crayfish ...
Saline Burrowing Crayfish ............
Crested Riverlet Crayfish ..............
Oktibbeha Riverlet Crayfish ..........
Tombigbee Riverlet Crayfish .........
Yalobusha Riverlet Crayfish .........
Calcasieu Crayfish ........................
Coldwater Crayfish ........................
Yazoo Crayfish ..............................
Tennessee Cave Crayfish ............
Sucarnoochee River Crayfish .......
Kisatchie Painted Crayfish ............
Mammoth Spring Crayfish ............
Appalachian Cave Crayfish ..........
Bird .....................................
Bird .....................................
Butterfly ..............................
Butterfly ..............................
Butterfly ..............................
Butterfly ..............................
Caddisfly ............................
Caddisfly ............................
Caddisfly ............................
Caddisfly ............................
Caddisfly ............................
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
X
..........
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
..........
X
..........
X
Caddisfly ............................
X
..........
..........
X
..........
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
X
X
X
..........
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
..........
X
..........
X
..........
X
..........
X
X
..........
..........
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
X
X
X
..........
X
X
X
..........
X
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
X
..........
X
..........
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
E:\FR\FM\27SEP4.SGM
27SEP4
59858
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—THREATS FOR THE 374 SPECIES AS CLASSIFIED BY THE PETITIONERS—Continued
Factor
Scientific name
Common name
Taxon
A
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Orconectes sheltae ........................
Orconectes virginiensis .................
Orconectes wrighti .........................
Procambarus acherontis ................
Procambarus apalachicolae ..........
Procambarus attiguus ....................
Procambarus barbiger ...................
Procambarus cometes ...................
Procambarus delicatus ..................
Procambarus econfinae .................
Procambarus erythrops .................
Procambarus fitzpatricki ................
Procambarus franzi .......................
Procambarus horsti .......................
Procambarus lagniappe .................
Procambarus leitheuseri ................
Procambarus lucifugus ..................
Procambarus lucifugus alachua ....
Procambarus lucifugus lucifugus ...
Procambarus lylei ..........................
Procambarus milleri .......................
Procambarus morrisi .....................
Procambarus orcinus .....................
Procambarus pallidus ....................
Procambarus pictus .......................
Procambarus pogum .....................
Procambarus regalis ......................
Procambarus reimeri .....................
Troglocambarus maclanei .............
Cordulegaster sayi .........................
Gomphus consanguis ....................
Gomphus sandrius ........................
Gomphus septima .........................
Gomphus westfalli .........................
Libellula jesseana ..........................
Macromia margarita .......................
Ophiogomphus australis ................
Ophiogomphus edmundo ..............
Ophiogomphus incurvatus .............
Somatochlora calverti ....................
Somatochlora margarita ................
Somatochlora ozarkensis ..............
Stylurus potulentus ........................
Amblyopsis spelaea .......................
Cyprinella callitaenia ......................
Cyprinella xaenura .........................
Elassoma boehlkei ........................
Erimystax harryi .............................
Etheostoma bellator .......................
Etheostoma brevirostrum ..............
Etheostoma cinereum ....................
Etheostoma forbesi ........................
Etheostoma microlepidum .............
Etheostoma osburni .......................
Etheostoma pallididorsum .............
Etheostoma pseudovulatum ..........
Etheostoma striatulum ...................
Etheostoma tecumsehi ..................
Etheostoma tippecanoe .................
Etheostoma trisella ........................
Etheostoma tuscumbia ..................
Fundulus julisia ..............................
Moxostoma robustum ....................
Notropis ariommus ........................
Notropis ozarcanus ........................
Notropis perpallidus .......................
Notropis suttkusi ............................
Noturus fasciatus ...........................
Noturus furiosus ............................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Sep 26, 2011
Shelta Cave Crayfish ....................
Chowanoke Crayfish .....................
Hardin Crayfish .............................
Orlando Cave Crayfish .................
Coastal Flatwoods Crayfish ..........
Silver Glen Springs Crayfish .........
Jackson Prairie Crayfish ...............
Mississippi Flatwoods Crayfish .....
Bigcheek Cave Crayfish ...............
Panama City Crayfish ...................
Santa Fe Cave Crayfish ...............
Spinytail Crayfish ..........................
Orange Lake Cave Crayfish .........
Big Blue Springs Cave Crayfish ...
Lagniappe Crayfish .......................
Coastal Lowland Cave Crayfish ...
Florida Cave Crayfish ...................
Alachua Light Fleeing Cave Crayfish.
Florida Cave Crayfish ...................
Shutispear Crayfish .......................
Miami Cave Crayfish .....................
Putnam County Cave Crayfish .....
Woodville Karst Cave Crayfish .....
Pallid Cave Crayfish .....................
Black Creek Crayfish ....................
Bearded Red Crayfish ..................
Regal Burrowing Crayfish .............
Irons Fork Burrowing Crayfish ......
Spider Cave Crayfish ....................
Say’s Spiketail ...............................
Cherokee Clubtail .........................
Tennessee Clubtail .......................
Septima’s Clubtail .........................
Westfall’s Clubtail ..........................
Purple Skimmer ............................
Mountain River Cruiser .................
Southern Snaketail ........................
Edmund’s Snaketail ......................
Appalachian Snaketail ..................
Calvert’s Emerald ..........................
Texas Emerald ..............................
Ozark Emerald ..............................
Yellow-sided Clubtail .....................
Northern cavefish ..........................
Bluestripe shiner ...........................
Altamaha Shiner ...........................
Carolina Pygmy Sunfish ...............
Ozark chub ....................................
Warrior Darter ...............................
Holiday Darter ...............................
Ashy Darter ...................................
Barrens Darter ..............................
Smallscale Darter ..........................
Candy Darter .................................
Paleback Darter ............................
Egg-mimic Darter ..........................
Striated Darter ...............................
Shawnee Darter ............................
Tippecanoe Darter ........................
Trispot Darter ................................
Tuscumbia Darter .........................
Barrens Topminnow ......................
Robust Redhorse ..........................
Popeye Shiner ..............................
Ozark Shiner .................................
Peppered Shiner ...........................
Rocky Shiner .................................
Saddled Madtom ...........................
Carolina Madtom ...........................
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
B
C
D
E
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
..........
..........
X
X
X
..........
X
..........
..........
X
..........
X
..........
X
X
Crayfish ..............................
Crayfish ..............................
Crayfish ..............................
Crayfish ..............................
Crayfish ..............................
Crayfish ..............................
Crayfish ..............................
Crayfish ..............................
Crayfish ..............................
Crayfish ..............................
Crayfish ..............................
Dragonfly ............................
Dragonfly ............................
Dragonfly ............................
Dragonfly ............................
Dragonfly ............................
Dragonfly ............................
Dragonfly ............................
Dragonfly ............................
Dragonfly ............................
Dragonfly ............................
Dragonfly ............................
Dragonfly ............................
Dragonfly ............................
Dragonfly ............................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
X
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
X
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
X
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
X
..........
X
X
X
X
X
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Crayfish
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27SEP4.SGM
27SEP4
59859
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—THREATS FOR THE 374 SPECIES AS CLASSIFIED BY THE PETITIONERS—Continued
Factor
Scientific name
Common name
Taxon
A
Noturus gilberti ..............................
Noturus gladiator ...........................
Noturus lachneri ............................
Noturus munitus ............................
Noturus taylori ...............................
Percina bimaculata ........................
Percina brevicauda ........................
Percina crypta ................................
Percina cymatotaenia ....................
Percina kusha ................................
Percina macrocephala ...................
Percina nasuta ...............................
Percina sipsi ..................................
Percina williamsi ............................
Pteronotropis euryzonus ................
Pteronotropis hubbsi ......................
Thoburnia atripinnis .......................
Remenus kirchneri .........................
Caecidotea cannula .......................
Lirceus culveri ................................
Blarina carolinensis shermani .......
Oryzomys palustris pop. 1 .............
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Oryzomys palustris pop.2 ..............
Sigmodon hispidus insulicola ........
Automeris louisiana .......................
Alasmidonta arcula ........................
Alasmidonta triangulata .................
Alasmidonta varicosa ....................
Anodonta heardi ............................
Anodontoides radiatus ...................
Cyprogenia aberti ..........................
Elliptio ahenea ...............................
Elliptio arca ....................................
Elliptio arctata ................................
Elliptio fraterna ...............................
Elliptio lanceolata ...........................
Elliptio monroensis ........................
Elliptio purpurella ...........................
Fusconaia masoni .........................
Fusconaia subrotunda ...................
Lampsilis fullerkati .........................
Lasmigona holstonia ......................
Lasmigona subviridis .....................
Medionidus conradicus ..................
Medionidus walkeri ........................
Obovaria subrotunda .....................
Obovaria unicolor ..........................
Pleurobema athearni .....................
Pleurobema oviforme ....................
Pleurobema rubellum ....................
Pleurobema rubrum .......................
Pleuronaia barnesiana ...................
Pyganodon gibbosa .......................
Quadrula asperata archeri .............
Simpsonaias ambigua ...................
Toxolasma lividus ..........................
Toxolasma pullus ...........................
Villosa nebulosa ............................
Villosa ortmanni .............................
Villosa umbrans .............................
Fissidens appalachensis ...............
Fissidens hallii ...............................
Megaceros aenigmaticus ...............
Phaeophyscia leana ......................
Plagiochila caduciloba ...................
Plagiochila sharpii ssp. sharpii ......
Clonophis kirtlandii ........................
Deirochelys reticularia miaria ........
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Sep 26, 2011
Orangefin Madtom ........................
Piebald Madtom ............................
Ouachita Madtom ..........................
Frecklebelly Madtom .....................
Caddo Madtom .............................
Chesapeake Logperch ..................
Coal Darter ....................................
Halloween Darter ..........................
Bluestripe Darter ...........................
Bridled Darter ................................
Longhead Darter ...........................
Longnose Darter ...........................
Bankhead Darter ...........................
Sickle Darter .................................
Broadstripe Shiner ........................
Bluehead Shiner ...........................
Blackfin Sucker .............................
Blueridge Springfly ........................
None ..............................................
Rye Cove Isopod ..........................
Sherman’s Short-tailed Shrew ......
Pine Island Oryzomys or Marsh
Rice Rat.
Sanibel Island Oryzomys or Marsh
Rice Rat.
Insular Cotton Rat .........................
Louisiana Eyed Silkmoth ..............
Altamaha Arcmussel .....................
Southern Elktoe ............................
Brook Floater ................................
Apalachicola Floater .....................
Rayed Creekshell ..........................
Western Fanshell ..........................
Southern Lance .............................
Alabama Spike ..............................
Delicate Spike ...............................
Brother Spike ................................
Yellow Lance .................................
St. John’s Elephant Ear ................
Inflated Spike ................................
Atlantic Pigtoe ...............................
Longsolid .......................................
Waccamaw Fatmucket ..................
Tennessee Heelsplitter .................
Green Floater ................................
Cumberland Moccasinshell ...........
Suwannee Moccasinshell .............
Round Hickorynut .........................
Alabama Hickorynut ......................
Canoe Creek Pigtoe .....................
Tennessee Clubshell ....................
Warrior Pigtoe ...............................
Pyramid Pigtoe ..............................
Tennessee Pigtoe .........................
Inflated Floater ..............................
Tallapoosa Orb .............................
Salamander Mussel ......................
Purple Lilliput ................................
Savannah Lilliput ...........................
Alabama Rainbow .........................
Kentucky Creekshell .....................
Coosa Creekshell ..........................
Appalachian Fissidens Moss ........
Hall’s Pocket Moss .......................
Hornwort ........................................
Lea’s Bog Lichen ..........................
Gorge Leafy Liverwort ..................
Sharp’s Leafy Liverwort ................
Kirtland’s Snake ............................
Western Chicken Turtle ................
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
B
C
D
E
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fish ....................................
Fly ......................................
Isopod ................................
Isopod ................................
Mammal .............................
Mammal .............................
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
Mammal .............................
X
..........
..........
X
X
Mammal .............................
Moth ...................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Mussel ................................
Non-Vascular Plant ............
Non-Vascular Plant ............
Non-Vascular Plant ............
Non-Vascular Plant ............
Non-Vascular Plant ............
Non-Vascular Plant ............
Reptile ................................
Reptile ................................
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
X
X
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
X
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
X
X
X
X
..........
X
X
X
..........
X
..........
..........
X
X
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27SEP4.SGM
27SEP4
59860
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—THREATS FOR THE 374 SPECIES AS CLASSIFIED BY THE PETITIONERS—Continued
Factor
Scientific name
Common name
Taxon
A
Eumeces egregius egregius ..........
Graptemys barbouri .......................
Graptemys ernsti ...........................
Graptemys gibbonsi .......................
Graptemys nigrinoda .....................
Graptemys pulchra ........................
Kinosternon baurii pop. 1 ..............
Pseudemys nelsoni pop. 1 ............
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Pseudemys rubriventris .................
Thamnophis sauritus pop.1 ...........
Antrorbis breweri ...........................
Aphaostracon asthenes .................
Aphaostracon chalarogyrus ...........
Aphaostracon monas .....................
Aphaostracon pycnus ....................
Aphaostracon theiocrenetum .........
Elimia acuta ...................................
Elimia alabamensis ........................
Elimia ampla ..................................
Elimia annettae ..............................
Elimia arachnoidea ........................
Elimia bellacrenata ........................
Elimia bellula .................................
Elimia chiltonensis .........................
Elimia cochliaris .............................
Elimia cylindracea ..........................
Elimia lachryma .............................
Elimia nassula ...............................
Elimia olivula ..................................
Elimia perstriata .............................
Elimia showalteri ............................
Elimia teres ....................................
Elimia vanuxemiana ......................
Floridobia mica ..............................
Floridobia monroensis ...................
Floridobia parva .............................
Floridobia ponderosa .....................
Floridobia wekiwae ........................
Leptoxis arkansasensis .................
Leptoxis picta .................................
Leptoxis virgata .............................
Lithasia curta .................................
Lithasia duttoniana ........................
Lo fluvialis ......................................
Marstonia agarhecta ......................
Marstonia castor ............................
Marstonia ozarkensis .....................
Planorbella magnifica ....................
Pleurocera corpulenta ...................
Pleurocera curta ............................
Pleurocera pyrenella ......................
Rhodacme elatior ..........................
Somatogyrus alcoviensis ...............
Acroneuria kosztarabi ....................
Allocapnia brooksi .........................
Allocapnia fumosa .........................
Allocapnia cunninghami .................
Amphinemura mockfordi ................
Leuctra szczytkoi ...........................
Megaleuctra williamsae .................
Tallaperla lobata ............................
Aeschynomene pratensis ..............
Alnus maritima ...............................
Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana
Arnoglossum diversifolium .............
Balduina atropurpurea ...................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Sep 26, 2011
Florida Keys Mole Skink ...............
Barbour’s Map Turtle ....................
Escambia Map Turtle ....................
Pascagoula Map Turtle .................
Black-knobbed Map Turtle ............
Alabama Map Turtle .....................
Striped Mud Turtle—Lower FL
Keys.
Florida Red-bellied Turtle—FL
Panhandle.
Northern Red-bellied Cooter .........
Eastern Ribbonsnake—Lower FL
Keys.
Manitou Cavesnail ........................
Blue Spring Hydrobe Snail ...........
Freemouth Hydrobe Snail .............
Wekiwa Hydrobe Snail ..................
Dense Hydrobe Snail ....................
Clifton Spring Hydrobe Snail ........
Acute Elimia ..................................
Mud Elimia ....................................
Ample Elimia .................................
Lilyshoals Elimia ...........................
Spider Elimia .................................
Princess Elimia .............................
Walnut Elimia ................................
Prune Elimia ..................................
Cockle Elimia ................................
Cylinder Elimia ..............................
Nodulose Coosa River Snail .........
Round-Rib Elimia ..........................
Caper Elimia .................................
Engraved Elimia ............................
Compact Elimia .............................
Elegant Elimia ...............................
Cobble Elimia ................................
Ichetucknee Siltsnail .....................
Enterprise Siltsnail ........................
Pygmy Siltsnail ..............................
Ponderosa Siltsnail .......................
Wekiwa Siltsnail ............................
Arkansas Mudalia .........................
Spotted Rocksnail .........................
Smooth Mudalia ............................
Knobby Rocksnail .........................
Helmet Rocksnail ..........................
Spiny Riversnail ............................
Ocmulgee Marstonia .....................
Beaverpond Marstonia ..................
Ozark Pyrg ....................................
Magnificent Ram’s-horn ................
Corpulent Hornsnail ......................
Shortspire Hornsnail .....................
Skirted Hornsnail ...........................
Domed Ancylid ..............................
Reverse Pepplesnail .....................
Virginia Stone ................................
Sevier Snowfly ..............................
Smokies Snowfly ...........................
Karst Snowfly ................................
Tennessee Forestfly .....................
Louisiana Needlefly .......................
Smokies Needlefly ........................
Lobed Roachfly .............................
Meadow Joint-vetch ......................
Seaside Alder ................................
Georgia Leadplant (GA Indigo
Bush).
Variable-leaved Indian-Plantain ....
Purple
Balduina
(Purpledisk
honeycombhead).
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
B
C
D
E
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
X
X
X
..........
..........
..........
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
X
X
X
X
X
Reptile ................................
X
X
X
X
..........
Reptile ................................
Reptile ................................
X
X
X
..........
X
..........
X
X
X
..........
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Snail ...................................
Stonefly ..............................
Stonefly ..............................
Stonefly ..............................
Stonefly ..............................
Stonefly ..............................
Stonefly ..............................
Stonefly ..............................
Stonefly ..............................
Vascular Plant ....................
Vascular Plant ....................
Vascular Plant ....................
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
..........
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
..........
X
..........
X
X
X
X
..........
X
..........
X
..........
X
X
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
X
..........
..........
Vascular Plant ....................
Vascular Plant ....................
X
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
X
X
..........
Reptile
Reptile
Reptile
Reptile
Reptile
Reptile
Reptile
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27SEP4.SGM
27SEP4
59861
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—THREATS FOR THE 374 SPECIES AS CLASSIFIED BY THE PETITIONERS—Continued
Factor
Scientific name
Common name
Taxon
A
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Baptisia megacarpa .......................
Bartonia texana .............................
Boltonia montana ...........................
Calamovilfa arcuata .......................
Carex brysonii ................................
Carex impressinervia .....................
Coreopsis integrifolia .....................
Croton elliottii .................................
Elytraria
caroliniensis
var.
angustifolia.
Encyclia cochleata var. triandra ....
Epidendrum strobiliferum ...............
Eriocaulon koernickianum .............
Eriocaulon nigrobracteatum ...........
Eupatorium paludicola ...................
Eurybia saxicastellii .......................
Fimbristylis perpusilla ....................
Forestiera godfreyi .........................
Hartwrightia floridan .......................
Helianthus
occidentalis
ssp.
plantagineus.
Hexastylis speciosa .......................
Hymenocallis henryae ...................
Hypericum edisonianum ................
Hypericum lissophloeus .................
Illicium parviflorum .........................
Isoetes hyemalis ............................
Isoetes microvela ...........................
Lilium iridollae ................................
Lindera subcoriacea ......................
Linum westii ...................................
Lobelia boykinii ..............................
Ludwigia brevipes ..........................
Ludwigia spathulata .......................
Luwigia ravenii ...............................
Lythrum curtissii .............................
Lythrum flagellare ..........................
Macbridea caroliniana ...................
Marshallia grandiflora ....................
Minuartia godfreyi ..........................
Najas filifolia ..................................
Nuphar lutea ssp. sagittifolia .........
Nuphar lutea ssp. ulvacea .............
Nyssa ursina ..................................
Oncidium undulatum ......................
Physostegia correllii .......................
Potamogeton floridanus .................
Potamogeton tennesseensis .........
Ptilimnium ahlesii ...........................
Rhexia parviflora ............................
Rhexia salicifolia ............................
Rhynochospora crinipes ................
Rhynchospora thornei ...................
Rudbeckia auriculata .....................
Rudbeckia heliopsidis ....................
Salix floridana ................................
Sarracenia purpurea var. montana
Sarracenia rubra ssp. gulfensis .....
Sarracenia rubra ssp. wherryi .......
Schoenoplectus hallii .....................
Scutellaria ocmulgee .....................
Sideroxylon thornei ........................
Solidago arenicola .........................
Sporobolus teretifolius ...................
Stellaria fontinalis ..........................
Symphyotrichum puniceum var.
scabricaule.
Thalictrum debile ...........................
Trillium texanum ............................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Sep 26, 2011
B
C
D
E
Apalachicola Wild Indigo ...............
Texas Screwstem .........................
Doll’s-Daisy ...................................
Rivergrass .....................................
Bryson’s Sedge .............................
Impressed-nerved Sedge ..............
Ciliate-leaf Tickseed ......................
Elliott’s Croton ...............................
Narrowleaf Carolina Scalystem .....
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
..........
..........
X
X
..........
..........
..........
Clam-shell Orchid .........................
Big Cypress Epidendrum ..............
Small-headed Pipewort .................
Black-bracket Pipewort .................
A Thoroughwort ............................
Rockcastle Wood-Aster ................
Harper’s Fimbristylis .....................
Godfry’s Privet ..............................
Hartwrightia ...................................
Shinner’s Sunflower ......................
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
..........
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
X
..........
X
X
X
..........
X
..........
..........
Harper’s Heartleaf .........................
Henry’s Spider-lily .........................
Edison’s Ascyrum .........................
Smooth-barked St. John’s-wort ....
Yellow Anisetree ...........................
Winter or Evergreen Quillwort ......
Thin-wall Quillwort .........................
Panhandle Lily ..............................
Bog Spicebush ..............................
West’s Flax ...................................
Boykin’s Lobelia ............................
Long Beach Seedbox ...................
Spathulate Seedbox ......................
Raven’s Seedbox ..........................
Curtis’s Loosestrife .......................
Lowland Loosestrife ......................
Carolina Birds-in-a-nest ................
Large-flowered Barbara’s-buttons
Godfry’s Stitchwort ........................
Narrowleaf Naiad ..........................
Cape Fear Spatterdock or Yellow
Pond Lily.
West Florida Cow-lily ....................
Bear Tupelo or Dwarf Blackgum ..
Cape Sable Orchid .......................
Correll’s False Dragonhead ..........
Florida Pondweed .........................
Tennessee Pondweed ..................
Carolina Bishopweed ....................
Small-flower Meadow-beauty ........
Panhandle Meadow-beauty ..........
Hairy-peduncled Beakbush ...........
Thorne’s Beakbush .......................
Eared Coneflower .........................
Sun-facing Coneflower ..................
Florida Willow ................................
Mountain purple pitcherplant ........
Gulf Sweet Pitcherplant ................
Wherry’s Sweet Pitcherplant .........
Hall’s Bulrush ................................
Ocmulgee Skullcap .......................
Swamp Buckhorn or GA Bully ......
Southern Racemose Goldenrod ...
Wire-leaved Dropseed ..................
Water Stitchwort ............................
Rough-stemmed Aster ..................
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
X
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
X
..........
X
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
X
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
X
X
..........
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
X
X
X
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
X
X
..........
X
..........
X
..........
Southern Meadowrue ....................
Texas Trillium ................................
Vascular Plant ....................
Vascular Plant ....................
X
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
X
X
X
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27SEP4.SGM
27SEP4
59862
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—THREATS FOR THE 374 SPECIES AS CLASSIFIED BY THE PETITIONERS—Continued
Factor
Scientific name
Common name
Taxon
A
Tsuga caroliniana ..........................
Vicia ocalensis ...............................
Waldsteinia lobata .........................
Xyris longisepala ...........................
Factor
Factor
Factor
Factor
Factor
Carolina Hemlock ..........................
Ocala Vetch ..................................
Lobed Barren-strawberry ..............
Kral’s Yellow-eyed Grass ..............
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
....................
....................
....................
....................
C
D
E
X
X
X
X
..........
..........
..........
..........
X
..........
..........
..........
X
X
X
X
..........
X
X
..........
A: 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: Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.
E: Other natural or manmade factors.
Evaluation of the Information Provided
in the Petition and Available in Service
Files
We reviewed and evaluated 374 of
404 species in the petition, as well as
the additional information contained in
the second petition for the Carolina
hemlock and the supplemental
information provided for the Panama
City crayfish. Due to the large number
of species reviewed, we were only able
to conduct cursory reviews of the
information in our files and the
literature cited in the petition. For many
of the narrowly endemic species
included in the 374 species, we had no
additional information in our files and
relied solely on the information
provided in the petition and provided
through NatureServe.
Finding
On the basis of our evaluation under
section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we
determine that the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information that listing 374 species
(listed in Table 2) as endangered or
threatened under the Act may be
warranted. This finding is based on
information provided under Factors A,
B, C, D, and E. Because we have found
that the petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing may
be warranted, we are initiating status
reviews to determine whether listing
these species under the Act is
warranted.
In addition, we find that the petition
presents substantial scientific or
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
Vascular
B
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
commercial information indicating that
listing 18 species that are current
candidate species or the subjects of
proposed rules to list may be warranted.
The 18 species (listed with details in the
Petition History section) are sicklefin
redhorse, laurel dace, spectaclecase,
narrow pigtoe, round ebonyshell,
southern sandshell, sheepnose, fuzzy
pigtoe, southern kidneyshell,
rabbitsfoot, tapered pigtoe, Choctaw
bean, rayed bean, black mudalia,
Coleman cave beetle, Black Warrior
waterdog, Yadkin River goldenrod, and
the snuffbox. As a warranted
determination for listing has already
been made for these species, we will not
be initiating status reviews for these
species at this time. Further information
on the assessments for these 18 species
can be found at https://ecos.fws.gov/
tess_public/.
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 90day 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 90day 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
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
mean that the 12-month finding will
result in a warranted finding.
We previously determined that
emergency listing of any of the 404
petitioned species is not warranted.
However, if at any time we determine
that emergency listing of any of the
species is warranted, we will initiate an
emergency listing at that time.
The petitioners requested that critical
habitat be designated concurrent with
listing under the Act. If we determine in
our 12-month finding, following the
status review of the species, that listing
is warranted, we will address the
designation of critical habitat in the
subsequent proposed rule.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is
available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov and upon request
from the Southeast Ecological Services
Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this document
are the staff members of the Southeast
Region Ecological Services Offices.
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: September 12, 2011.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–24633 Filed 9–26–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\27SEP4.SGM
27SEP4
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 27, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59836-59862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24633]
[[Page 59835]]
Vol. 76
Tuesday,
No. 187
September 27, 2011
Part IV
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Partial 90-Day Finding
on a Petition To List 404 Species in the Southeastern United States as
Endangered or Threatened With Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 59836]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2011-0049; MO 92210-0-0009]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Partial 90-Day
Finding on a Petition To List 404 Species in the Southeastern United
States as Endangered or Threatened With Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
partial 90-day finding on a petition to list 404 species in the
southeastern United States as endangered or threatened under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review,
we find that for 374 of the 404 species, the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
listing may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this
notice, we are initiating a status review of the 374 species to
determine if listing is warranted. To ensure that the review is
comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information
regarding these 374 species. Based on the status reviews, we will issue
12-month findings on the petition, which will address whether the
petitioned action is warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of
the Act. Of the 30 other species in the petition, 1 species--Alabama
shad--has had a 90-day finding published by the National Marine
Fisheries Service, and 18 species are already on the Service's list of
candidate species or are presently the subject of proposed rules to
list. We have not yet made a finding on the remaining 11 species, but
anticipate doing so no later than September 30, 2011.
DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct a status review, we request
that we receive information on or before November 28, 2011. The
deadline for submitting an electronic comment using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section below) is 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time on this date. After November 28, 2011, you must submit
information directly to the Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below). Please note that we may 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:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Enter Keyword or ID box, enter Docket No.
FWS-R4-ES-2011-0049, which is the docket number for this action. Then
click on the Search button.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2011-0049; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all information
received on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we
will post any personal information you provide us (see Request for
Information section below for more details).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Mizzi, Chief, Division of
Endangered Species, Ecological Services, Southeast Regional Office,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Blvd., Atlanta, GA 30345;
by telephone at 404-679-7169; or by facsimile at 404-679-7081. If you
use a telecommunications 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 a species may be warranted for listing, we
are required to promptly review the status of the species (status
review). For the status reviews to be complete and based on the best
available scientific and commercial information, we request information
on the 374 species from governmental agencies, Native American tribes,
the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties
concerning the status of the species. 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
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the 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.
(3) The potential effects of climate change on the species and
their habitat.
If, after the status review, we determine that listing any of these
species is warranted, it is our intent to propose critical habitat
under section 4 of the Act, to the maximum extent prudent and
determinable at the time we propose to list the species. Therefore, we
also request data and information on:
(1) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species,'' within the geographical range
currently occupied by the species;
(2) Where these features are currently found;
(3) Whether any of these features may require special management
considerations or protection;
(4) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species that are ``essential for the conservation of the species;'' and
(5) 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, other supporting publications, or data) 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 threatened species must be made ``solely on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
You may submit your information concerning the status reviews or
the 404 species 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
[[Page 59837]]
identifying information--will be posted on the Web site. If your
submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying
information, you may request at the top of your document that we
withhold this 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 by appointment, during normal business hours,
at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Ecological Services
Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on
whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that a
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on
information found 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 this
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 April 20, 2010, we received, via electronic mail, a petition
from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Alabama Rivers
Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network,
Tennessee Forests Council, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Tierra
Curry, and Noah Greenwald (referred to below as the CBD petition) to
list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species from the southeastern
United States as endangered or threatened species and to designate
critical habitat concurrent with listing under the Act. The petition
clearly identified itself as a petition, was dated, and included the
identification information required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). On April 21,
2010, via electronic mail to Noah Greenwald at CBD, we acknowledged
receipt of the petition. On May 10, 2010, the Southeast Region of the
Service, to which the petition had been assigned, provided additional
formal written acknowledgement of receipt of the petition.
The petitioners developed an initial list of species by searching
NatureServe for species that ``occur in the twelve states typically
considered the Southeast, occur in aquatic, riparian, or wetland
habitats and appeared to be imperiled.'' Species were considered
imperiled if they were classified as G1 or G2 by NatureServe, near
threatened or worse by the International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN), or a species of concern, threatened, or endangered by
the American Fisheries Society.
NatureServe conservation status ranks range from critically
imperiled (1) to demonstrably secure (5). Status is assessed and
documented at three distinct geographic scales: Global (G), national
(N), and subnational (S) (i.e., state/province/municipal). Subspecies
are similarly assessed with a subspecific (T) numerical assignment.
Assessment by NatureServe of any species as being critically imperiled
(G1), imperiled (G2), or vulnerable (G3) does not constitute a
recommendation by NatureServe for listing under the Act. NatureServe
status assessment procedures have different criteria, evidence
requirements, purposes, and taxonomic coverage than government lists of
endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of
lists should not be expected to coincide. For example, an important
factor in many legal listing processes is the extent to which a species
is already receiving protection of some type--a consideration not
included in the NatureServe conservation status ranks. Similarly, the
IUCN and American Fisheries Society do not apply the same criteria to
their ranking determinations as those encompassed in the Act and its
implementing regulations.
On May 7, 2010, the Service received correspondence from the
Southeastern Fishes Council, dated May 2, 2010, with an explanation of
its involvement in formulation of the petition. The Council was
contacted by CBD, which solicited the Council's involvement in the
preparation of the subject petition. The Southeastern Fishes Council's
members provided expertise in review of the CBD's list of fishes in the
draft petition.
On May 27, 2010, the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society
submitted a letter to the Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Southeast Region, in support of the CBD petition's inclusion of a large
number of freshwater mollusks. On September 1, 2010, and again on
October 1, 2010, CBD forwarded to the Regional Director, Service,
Southeast Region, a letter of support for the subject petition from 35
conservation organizations.
The CBD submitted supplemental comments and information on October
6, 2010, in support of protecting the Panama City crayfish (Procambarus
econfinae) under the Act. On December 13, 2010, we received a second
petition, from Wild South, to list the Carolina hemlock (Tsuga
caroliniana), as endangered and to designate its critical habitat. We
acknowledged receipt of the petition in a letter dated December 20,
2010, and identified it as a second petition for the same species' as
Tsuga caroliniana was one of the species identified in the CBD
petition.
The CBD petition included 404 species for which the petitioners
requested listing as endangered or threatened under the Act, and
designation of critical habitat concurrent with the listing. It is our
practice to evaluate all species petitioned for listing for the
potential need to emergency list the species under the emergency
provisions of the Act at section 4(b)(7) and as outlined at 50 CFR
424.20. We have carefully considered the information provided in the
petition and in our files and have determined that emergency listing is
not indicated for any of the 404 species in the petition.
The petition included 18 species that were already on the Service's
list of candidate species at the time of receipt of the petition,
including five that have since been proposed to be listed as
endangered. A candidate species is one for which we have on file
sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to
support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened, but for which
preparation and publication of a proposal is precluded by higher
priority listing actions. We may identify a species as a candidate for
listing based on an evaluation of its status that we conducted on our
own initiative, or as a result of making a finding on a petition to
list a species that listing is warranted but precluded by other higher
priority listing actions. Of the 404 species that are the subjects of
the petition, 18 had already been placed on the candidate list as a
result of our own review and evaluation. These include: sicklefin
redhorse (Moxostoma sp. 2 (the
[[Page 59838]]
2 refers to one of two species within the genus that have not yet been
officially classified)), laurel dace (Phoxinus saylori) ((currently
proposed for listing as endangered (June 24, 2011; 75 FR 36035)),
spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta) ((currently proposed for listing
as endangered (January 19, 2011; 76 FR 3392)), narrow pigtoe (Fusconaia
escambia), round ebonyshell (Fusconaia rotulata), southern sandshell
(Hamiota australis), sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphyus) ((currently
proposed for listing as endangered (January 19, 2011; 76 FR 3392)),
fuzzy pigtoe (Pleurobema strodeanum), southern kidneyshell
(Ptychobranchus jonesi), rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica),
tapered pigtoe (Fusconaia burkei), Choctaw bean (Villosa choctawensis),
rayed bean (Villosa fabalis) ((currently proposed for listing as
endangered (November 2, 2010; 75 FR 67552)), black mudalia (Elimia
melanoides), Coleman cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus colemanensis),
Black Warrior waterdog (Necturus alabamensis), and Yadkin River
goldenrod (Solidago plumosa). We proposed to list the snuffbox
(Epioblasma triquetra) as endangered on November 2, 2010 (75 FR 67552).
We conduct a review of all candidate species annually to ensure
that a proposed listing is justified for each species, and reevaluate
the relative listing priority number assigned to each species. We also
evaluate the need to emergency list any of these species, particularly
species with high priorities. Through this annual review we also add
new candidate species and remove those that no longer warrant listing.
This review and reevaluation ensure that we focus conservation efforts
on those species at greatest risk first.
Because we have already made the equivalent of a 90-day and a 12-
month finding on the species listed above, and they have already been
identified as warranting listing, including five that we have proposed
to list as endangered, we find the petition provides substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that these species may
be warranted for listing.
The CBD petition includes one species, the Alabama shad (Alosa
alabamae), that falls under the jurisdiction of the NMFS. According to
the 1974 Memorandum of Understanding regarding jurisdictional
responsibilities and listing procedures between the Service and NMFS,
the NMFS has jurisdiction over species which either (1) Reside the
majority portion of their lifetimes in marine waters, or (2) are
species which spend part of their lifetimes in estuarine waters, if the
majority portion of the remaining time (the time which is not spent in
estuarine waters) is spent in marine waters. Based on this definition,
NMFS has jurisdiction for the Alabama shad, and, accordingly, NMFS
provided a letter to the Service, dated April 30, 2010, proposing to
evaluate the subject petition, for the Alabama shad only, for the
purpose of the 90-day finding and any required subsequent listing
action. The NMFS published the 90-day finding for the Alabama shad on
February 17, 2011 (76 FR 9320), and in that document announced its
finding that the petition did not present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that listing may be warranted for the
Alabama shad.
Previous Federal Actions
A large number of the petitioned species have previously been
considered for listing under the Act and were at one time or another
assigned status as a category 1, 2, or 3C candidate species. A category
1 candidate species was one for which the Service had substantial
information on hand to support the biological appropriateness of
proposing to list as endangered or threatened, and for which
development and publication of such a proposal was anticipated. A
category 2 candidate species was one for which there was some evidence
of vulnerability, but for which additional biological information was
needed to support a proposed rule to list as endangered or threatened.
A category 3C candidate was one that was proven to be more widespread
than was previously believed and/or those that were not subject to any
identifiable threats. These categories were discontinued in 1996
(December 5, 1996; 61 FR 64481) in favor of maintaining a list that
only represented those species for which we have on file sufficient
information on biological vulnerability and threats to support a
proposal to list as endangered or threatened, but for which preparation
and publication of a proposal is precluded by higher priority listing
actions.
The Service was previously petitioned to list two of the subject
petitioned species, the Say's spiketail dragonfly (February 15, 1994)
and the orangefin madtom (October 6, 1983), as endangered species. We
published 90-day findings for Say's spiketail dragonfly on October 26,
1994 (59 FR 53776), and the orangefin madtom on January 16, 1984 (49 FR
1919), respectively, and 12-month findings on July 17, 1995 (60 FR
36380), and July 18, 1985 (50 FR 29238), respectively. Similarly, we
previously proposed to list as endangered the Barrens topminnow
(December 30, 1977; 42 FR 65209). However, that proposal was never
finalized.
Table 1--Previous Federal Register Notices Addressing the Petitioned Species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FR Citation Publication date Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
74 FR 57804............................. 11/9/2009.................. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants (ETWP): Review of Native Species
That Are Candidates for Listing as
Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice
on Findings on Resubmitted Petitions;
Annual Description of Progress on
Listing Actions; Proposed Rule.
61 FR 64481............................. 12/5/1996.................. ETWP; Notice of Final Decision on
Identification of Candidates for Listing
as Endangered or Threatened.
61 FR 7596.............................. 02/28/1996................. ETWP; Review of Plant and Animal Taxa
That Are Candidates for Listing as
Endangered or Threatened Species;
Proposed Rule.
60 FR 36380............................. 7/17/1995.................. ETWP; 12-Month Finding for a Petition To
List the Say's Spiketail Dragonfly as
Endangered.
59 FR 58982............................. 11/15/1994................. ETWP; Animal Candidate Review for Listing
as Endangered or Threatened Species;
Notice of Review.
59 FR 53776............................. 10/26/1994................. ETWP; 90-Day Finding for a Petition To
List the Say's Spiketail Dragonfly as
Endangered.
58 FR 51144............................. 9/30/1993.................. ETWP; Review of Plant Taxa for Listing as
Endangered or Threatened Species; Notice
of Review.
56 FR 58664............................. 11/21/1991................. ETWP; Annual Description of Progress on
Listing Actions and Findings on Recycled
Petitions.
56 FR 58804............................. 11/21/1991................. ETWP; Review of Animal Taxa for Listing
as Endangered or Threatened Species;
Notice of Review.
55 FR 17475............................. 4/25/1990.................. ETWP; Annual Description of Progress on
Listing Actions and Findings on Recycled
Petitions.
[[Page 59839]]
55 FR 6184.............................. 2/21/1990.................. ETWP; Review of Plant Taxa for Listing as
Endangered or Threatened Species; Notice
of Review.
54 FR 554............................... 1/6/1989................... ETWP; Review of Animal Taxa for Listing
as Endangered or Threatened Species;
Notice of Review.
53 FR 52746............................. 12/29/1988................. ETWP; Findings on Pending Petitions and
Description of Progress on Listing
Actions.
53 FR 25511............................. 7/7/1988................... ETWP; Findings on Pending Petitions and
Description of Progress on Listing
Actions.
52 FR 24312............................. 6/30/1987.................. ETWP; Findings on Pending Petitions and
Description of Progress on Listing
Actions.
51 FR 996............................... 1/09/1986.................. ETWP; Findings on Pending Petitions and
Description of Progress on Listing
Actions.
50 FR 39526............................. 9/27/1985.................. ETWP; Review of Plant Taxa for Listing as
Endangered or Threatened Species; Notice
of Review.
50 FR 37958............................. 9/18/1985.................. ETWP; Review of Vertebrate Wildlife.
50 FR 29238............................. 7/18/1985.................. 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List
the Orangefin Madtom.
50 FR 19761............................. 5/10/1985.................. ETWP; Findings on Pending Petitions and
Description of Progress on Listing
Actions.
49 FR 21664............................. 5/22/1984.................. ETWP; Review of Invertebrate Wildlife for
Listing as Endangered or Threatened
Species.
49 FR 2485.............................. 1/20/1984.................. ETWP; Findings on Pending Petitions and
Description of Progress on Listing
Actions.
49 FR 1919.............................. 1/16/1984.................. ETWP; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To
List the Orangefin Madtom.
48 FR 53640............................. 11/28/1983................. ETWP; Supplement to Review of Plant Taxa
for Listing as Endangered or Threatened
Species.
47 FR 58454............................. 12/30/1982................. ETWP; Review of Vertebrate Wildlife for
Listing as Endangered or Threatened
Species; Notice of Review.
45 FR 82480............................. 12/15/1980................. ETWP; Review of Plant Taxa for Listing as
Endangered or Threatened Species; Notice
of Review.
44 FR 70796............................. 12/10/1979................. ETWP; Notice of Withdrawal of That
Portion of Our June 16, 1976, Proposed
Rule That Has Not Yet Been Finalized.
44 FR 44418............................. 7/27/1979.................. ETWP; Reproposal of Critical Habitat for
the Barrens Topminnow.
44 FR 12382............................. 3/6/1979................... ETWP; Withdrawal of Proposed Critical
Habitat for the Barrens Topminnow.
43 FR 21702............................. 5/19/1978.................. ETWP; Proposed Endangered Status and
Critical Habitat for Two Species of
Turtles (Key Mud Turtle and Plymouth Red-
bellied Turtle).
43 FR 17909............................. 4/26/1978.................. ETWP; Final Rule and Summary of General
Comments Received in Response to a
Proposal To List Some 1700 U.S. Vascular
Plants.
42 FR 65209............................. 12/30/1977................. ETWP; Proposed Endangered Status for the
Barrens Topminnow.
41 FR 24524............................. 6/16/1976.................. ETWP; Proposed Endangered Status for Some
1700 U.S. Vascular Plants.
40 FR 27824............................. 7/1/1975................... Acceptance of Smithsonian Report As a
Petition To List Taxa Named Therein
Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and
Intention To Review the Status of Those
Plants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Information
The petition identified 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species
from the southeastern United States as needing protection under the
Act. This list included 15 amphibians, 6 amphipods, 18 beetles, 3
birds, 4 butterflies, 9 caddisflies, 83 crayfish, 14 dragonflies, 48
fish, 1 springfly, 1 fairy shrimp, 2 isopods, 4 mammals, 1 moth, 48
mussels, 6 non-vascular plants, 13 reptiles, 44 snails, 8 stoneflies,
and 76 vascular plants. Of these 404 species, 374 species are addressed
in this finding (listed in Table 2 in the Summary of Threats as
Identified in the Petition section below). We have not yet made a
finding on the following 11 species: South Florida rainbow snake
(Farancia erytrogramma seminola), Sarah's hydroptila caddisfly
(Hydroptila sarahae), Rogue Creek hydroptila caddisfly (Hydroptila
okaloosa), Florida brown checkered summer sedge (Polycentropus
floridensis), Florida fairy shrimp (Dexteria floridana), Ouachita
creekshell (Villosa arkansasensis), crystal darter (Crystallaria
asprella), spotted darter (Etheostoma maculatum), Florida bog frog
(Rana okaloosae), Greensboro burrowing crayfish (Cambarus catagius),
and Blood River crayfish (Orconectes burri).
The nature of this petition finding, that is, the large number of
species evaluated, necessitates our limiting a discussion of species
information to a general one; only where there is a clarification
necessary do we provide specific species information below.
The petition identified 15 amphibians and requested that they be
added to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List).
Thirteen of these are subjects of this finding, including the
following: Streamside salamander (Ambystoma barbouri), one-toed
amphiuma (Amphiuma pholeter), hellbender (Cryptobranchus
alleganiensis), Cumberland dusky salamander (Desmognathus abditus),
seepage salamander (Desmognathus aeneus), Chamberlain's dwarf
salamander (Eurycea chamberlaini), Oklahoma salamander (Eurycea
tynerensis), Tennessee cave salamander (Gyrinophilus palleucus), West
Virginia spring salamander (Gyrinophilus subterraneus), Georgia blind
salamander (Eurycea wallacei, formerly known as, and identified by
petitioners as, Haideotriton wallacei), Neuse River waterdog (Necturus
lewisi), Gulf hammock dwarf siren (Pseudobranchus striatus
lustricolus), and patch-nosed salamander (Urspelerpes brucei). The
Black Warrior waterdog (Necturus alabamensis) is already on the
Service's candidate species list. The seepage salamander, Oklahoma
salamander, Tennessee cave salamander, West Virginia Spring salamander,
Georgia blind salamander, Neuse River waterdog, hellbender, and Gulf
hammock dwarf siren were previous C2 candidates for Federal listing,
until that category was discontinued in 1996.
Chamberlain's dwarf salamander is given a NatureServe global
ranking of G5; however, its status in Georgia is S1, indicating it is
considered critically imperiled in that State. The streamside
salamander is given the G4 conservation status by NatureServe; however,
it is considered critically imperiled (S1) in West Virginia, imperiled
(S2) in Tennessee, and vulnerable (S3) in Indiana. The one-toed
amphiuma maintains a global G3 ranking by NatureServe; however, it is
also considered critically imperiled by NatureServe in Mississippi,
Alabama,
[[Page 59840]]
and Georgia, and vulnerable in Florida. The Tennessee cave salamander
maintains a NatureServe global ranking of G2 with State rankings of S2
(AL and TN) and S1 (GA). The hellbender maintains a NatureServe global
ranking of G3. Its State status ranges from S1 to S3. The subspecies
bishopi, or Ozark hellbender, was proposed for Federal listing as
endangered on September 8, 2010 (75 FR 54561). The Cumberland dusky
salamander and Georgia blind salamander each have a NatureServe
conservation status of imperiled (G2), with State rankings varying from
possibly extirpated, to critically imperiled, to imperiled. The seepage
salamander, Oklahoma salamander, and Neuse River waterdog each have a
NatureServe global conservation ranking of G3, with individual State
rankings of S1 to S3. The West Virginia spring salamander and patch-
nosed salamander each have a NatureServe conservation ranking of G1.
The Gulf hammock dwarf siren is given a NatureServe global ranking of
T1. The dwarf siren has not been documented since its description in
1951.
The petition identified six amphipods and requested that they be
added to the List, including the following: Florida cave amphipod
(Crangonyx grandimanus), Hobbs cave amphipod (Crangonyx hobbsi),
Cooper's cave amphipod (Stygobromus cooperi), tidewater amphipod
(Stygobromus indentatus), Morrison's cave amphipod (Stygobromus
morrisoni), and minute cave amphipod (Stygobromus parvus).
These six amphipods are each assigned a NatureServe Global ranking
of either G2 or G3, indicating they are considered imperiled or
vulnerable across their entire range. Cooper's cave amphipod, tidewater
amphipod, Morrison's cave amphipod and the minute cave amphipod were
each previous Service category 2 candidate species for listing (species
for which there was some evidence of vulnerability, but for which
additional biological information was needed to support a proposed rule
to list as endangered or threatened).
The petition identified 18 beetles and requested that they be added
to the List. Seventeen of these are included in this finding, including
the following: Cobblestone tiger beetle (Cincindela marginipennis),
Avernus cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus avernus), Little Kennedy cave
beetle (Pseudanophthalmus cordicollis), New River Valley cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus egberti), Cumberland Gap cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus hirsutus), Hubbard's cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus
hubbardi), Hubricht's cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus hubrichti),
Crossroad's cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus intersectus), Madden's cave
beetle (Pseudanophthalmus limicola), Dry Fork Valley cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus montanus), Natural Bridge cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus pontis), South Branch Valley cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus potomaca), overlooked cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus
praetermissus), Saint Paul cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus sanctipauli),
silken cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus sericus), Thomas's cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus thomasi), and Maiden Spring cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus virginicus). The Coleman's cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus colemanensis) is already a Federal candidate
species.
These cave beetles are locally endemic to small cave systems in
Virginia, West Virginia, and Tennessee. Sixteen of them are afforded a
NatureServe ranking of G1, with a population size of 1,000 or fewer,
and many have not been documented since their description. One cave
beetle, the South Branch Valley cave beetle, has a slightly wider range
and is afforded a NatureServe ranking of G3. All of these beetles were
previous category 2 candidates for Federal listing, until that category
was discontinued in 1996.
The petition identified three birds and requested that they be
added to the List, including the following: MacGillivray's seaside
sparrow (Ammodrammus maritimus macgillivraii), Florida sandhill crane
(Grus canadensis pratensis), and black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis).
MacGillivray's seaside sparrow and the Florida sandhill crane are given
a NatureServe ranking of T2, while the black rail is more widely
distributed and given a NatureServe ranking of G4. The black rail is a
previous category 2 candidate species.
The petition identified four butterflies and requested that they be
added to the List, including the following: Linda's roadside-skipper
(Amblyscirtes linda), Duke's skipper (Euphyes dukesi calhouni), Palatka
skipper (Euphyes pilatka klotsi), and rare skipper (Problema bulenta).
Linda's roadside skipper and the rare skipper are afforded a
NatureServe ranking of G2. Duke's and Palatka's skippers are afforded
NatureServe rankings of T2 and T1, respectively. The rare skipper was
previously considered a category 2 candidate, until that category was
discontinued by the Service in 1996.
The petition identified nine caddisflies and requested that they be
added to the List. Six of these are included in this finding, including
the following: Logan's agarodes caddisfly (Agarodes logani), Sykora's
hydroptila caddisfly (Hydroptila sykorae), Morse's little plain brown
sedge (Lepidostoma morsei), little oecetis longhorn caddisfly (Oecetis
parva), Setose cream and brown mottled microcaddisfly (Oxyethira
setosa), and three-toothed triaenodes caddisfly (Triaenodes tridontus).
Of these caddisflies, two are assigned a NatureServe ranking of G1,
and four are assigned a G2. There is very little known about these
species except that they appear to be very narrow endemics. The little
oecetis longhorn caddisfly and three-toothed triaenodes caddisfly are
previous category 2 candidate species.
The petition identified 83 crayfish and requested that they be
added to the List. Eighty-one of these are included in this finding:
Bayou Bodcau crayfish (Bouchardina robisoni), Dougherty Plain cave
crayfish (Cambarus cryptodytes), Obey crayfish (Cambarus obeyensis),
cypress crayfish (Cambarellus blacki), least crayfish (Cambarellus
diminutus), angular dwarf crawfish (Cambarellus lesliei), Big South
Fork crayfish (Cambarus bouchardi), New River crayfish (Cambarus
chasmodactylus), Chauga crayfish (Cambarus chaugaensis), Coosawattae
crayfish (Cambarus coosawattae), slenderclaw crayfish (Cambarus
cracens), Conasauga blue burrower (Cambarus cymatilis), Grandfather
Mountain crayfish (Cambarus eeseeohensis), Elk River crayfish (Cambarus
elkensis), Chickamauga crayfish (Cambarus extraneus), Etowah crayfish
(Cambarus fasciatus), Little Tennessee crayfish (Cambarus georgiae),
Piedmont blue burrower (Cambarus harti), spiny scale crayfish (Cambarus
jezerinaci), Alabama cave crayfish (Cambarus jonesi), Greenbrier cave
crayfish (Cambarus nerterius), Hiwassee headwater crayfish (Cambarus
parrishi), pristine crayfish (Cambarus pristinus), Chattooga River
crayfish (Cambarus scotti), beautiful crayfish (Cambarus speciosus),
Broad River spiny crayfish (Cambarus spicatus), lean crayfish (Cambarus
strigosus), blackbarred crayfish (Cambarus unestami), Big Sandy
crayfish (Cambarus veteranus), Brawley's Fork crayfish (Cambarus
williami), mimic crayfish (Distocambarus carlsoni), Broad River
burrowing crayfish (Distocambarus devexus), Newberry burrowing crayfish
(Distocambarus youngineri), burrowing bog crayfish (Fallicambarus
burrisi), speckled burrowing crayfish
[[Page 59841]]
(Fallicambarus danielae), Jefferson County crayfish (Fallicambarus
gilpini), Ouachita burrowing crayfish (Fallicambarus harpi), Hatchie
burrowing crayfish (Fallicambarus hortoni), slenderwrist burrowing
crayfish (Fallicambarus petilicarpus), Saline burrowing crayfish
(Fallicambarus strawni), Crested riverlet crayfish (Hobbseus
cristatus), Oktibbeha riverlet crayfish (Hobbseus orconectoides),
Tombigbee riverlet crayfish (Hobbseus petilus), Yalobusha riverlet
crayfish (Hobbseus yalobushensis), Calcasieu crayfish (Orconectes
blacki), Coldwater crayfish (Orconectes eupunctus), Yazoo crayfish
(Orconectes hartfieldi), Tennessee cave crayfish (Orconectes
incomptus), Sucarnoochee River crayfish (Orconectes jonesi), Kisatchie
painted crayfish (Orconectes maletae), Mammoth Spring crayfish
(Orconectes marchandi), Appalachian cave crayfish (Orconectes
packardi), Shelta cave crayfish (Orconectes sheltae), Chowanoke
crayfish (Orconectes virginiensis), Hardin crayfish (Orconectes
wrighti), Orlando cave crayfish (Procambarus acherontis), Coastal
flatwoods crayfish (Procambarus apalachicolae), Silver Glen Springs
crayfish (Procambarus attiguus), Jackson Prairie crayfish (Procambarus
barbiger), Mississippi flatwoods crayfish (Procambarus cometes),
bigcheek cave crayfish (Procambarus delicatus), Panama City crayfish
(Procambarus econfinae), Santa Fe cave crayfish (Procambarus
erythrops), spinytail crayfish (Procambarus fitzpatricki), Orange Lake
cave crayfish (Procambarus franzi), Big Blue Springs cave crayfish
(Procambarus horsti), lagniappe crayfish (Procambarus lagniappe),
coastal lowland cave crayfish (Procambarus leitheuseri), Florida cave
crayfish (Procambarus lucifugus), Alachua light-fleeing cave crayfish
(Procambarus lucifugus alachua), Florida cave crayfish (Procambarus
lucifugus lucifugus), Shutispear crayfish (Procambarus lylei), Miami
cave crayfish (Procambarus milleri), Putnam County cave crayfish
(Procambarus morrisi), Woodville Karst cave crayfish (Procambarus
orcinus), pallid cave crayfish (Procambarus pallidus), Black Creek
crayfish (Procambarus pictus), bearded red crayfish (Procambarus
pogum), regal burrowing crayfish (Procambarus regalis), Irons Fork
burrowing crayfish (Procambarus reimeri), and spider cave crayfish
(Troglocambarus maclanei).
The petition identified the Florida cave crayfish twice in its list
of 404 species, once at the species level, Procambarus lucifugus, and
once at the subspecific level, Procambarus lucifugus lucifugus. We
include both in this finding with the intent that a further status
review will assess the status at both the species and subspecies
levels.
We received an amended petition from CBD providing supplemental
comments in support of listing the Panama City crayfish. The petition
identified threats from habitat loss and degradation, predation,
overharvest from collections for use as fishing bait, drought, its
limited range and isolated distribution, pollution from pesticides and
fertilizers, invasive species of introduced crayfish, and the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The Panama City crayfish
only occurs in Bay County, Florida, where it is considered a species of
special concern by the State of Florida. The Service has worked with
the State and the St. Joe Company to develop a Candidate Conservation
Agreement with Assurances, but the Agreement has not been finalized.
Almost all of the petitioned crayfish are restricted to narrow
ranges encompassing small cave or stream systems, which places them in
the G1 or G2 NatureServe ranking due to their restricted ranges. Two
exceptions to this are the Woodville Karst cave crayfish (Procambarus
orcinus), which receives a G3 ranking, and the regal burrowing crayfish
(Procambarus regalis), which is given a G2G3 ranking. Their narrow
ranges make these crayfish vulnerable to any event that would result in
habitat degradation. A number of the crayfish (26) were previously
considered category 2 candidates until that category was discontinued
by the Service in 1996.
The petition identified 14 dragonflies and requested that they be
added to the List, including the following: Say's spiketail
(Cordulegaster sayi), Cherokee clubtail (Gomphus consanguis), Tennessee
clubtail (Gomphus sandrius), Septima's clubtail (Gomphus septima),
Westfall's clubtail (Gomphus westfalli), purple skimmer (Libellula
jesseana), Mountain River cruiser (Macromia margarita), southern
snaketail (Ophiogomphus australis), Edmund's snaketail (Ophiogomphus
edmundo), Appalachian snaketail (Ophiogomphus incurvatus), Calvert's
emerald (Somatochlora calverti), Texas emerald (Somatochlora
margarita), Ozark emerald (Somatochlora ozarkensis), and yellow-sided
clubtail (Stylurus potulentus).
The Service was previously (February 15, 1994) petitioned to list
the Say's spiketail dragonfly as an endangered species. We published a
90-day finding on October 26, 1994 (59 FR 53776) indicating that
because the species was already a category 2 candidate for listing we
would proceed with a full status review. The 12-month finding was
published on July 17, 1995 (60 FR 36380). The Service found that
listing the species was not warranted but retained the designation of
the Say's spiketail as a category 2 candidate species. An additional
eight of the petitioned dragonflies held previous designations of
category 2 candidate species, including the Cherokee clubtail,
Tennessee clubtail, Septima's clubtail, Westfall's clubtail, Mountain
River cruiser, Edmund's snaketail, Appalachian snaketail, and the Texas
emerald. The NatureServe global ranking of the petitioned dragonflies
ranges from G1, critically imperiled, to G3, vulnerable.
The petition identified 47 fish (not including the Alabama shad
(Alosa alabamae), which has already been the subject of a 90-day
finding by NMFS) to be added to the List. Forty-three of these are
included in this finding, including the following: Northern cavefish
(Amblyopsis spelaea), bluestripe shiner (Cyprinella callitaenia),
Altamaha shiner (Cyprinella xaenura), Carolina pygmy sunfish (Elassoma
boehlkei), Ozark chub (Erimystax harryi), Warrior darter (Etheostoma
bellator), holiday darter (Etheostoma brevirostrum), ashy darter
(Etheostoma cinereum), Barrens darter (Etheostoma forbesi), smallscale
darter (Etheostoma microlepidum), candy darter (Etheostoma osburni),
paleback darter (Etheostoma pallididorsum), egg-mimic darter
(Etheostoma pseudovulatum), striated darter (Etheostoma striatulum),
Shawnee darter (Etheostoma tecumsehi), Tippecanoe darter (Etheostoma
tippecanoe), trispot darter (Etheostoma trisella), Tuscumbia darter
(Etheostoma tuscumbia), Barrens topminnow (Fundulus julisia), robust
redhorse (Moxostoma robustum), popeye shiner (Notropis ariommus), Ozark
shiner (Notropis ozarcanus), peppered shiner (Notropis perpallidus),
rocky shiner (Notropis suttkusi), saddled madtom (Noturus fasciatus),
Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus), orangefin madtom (Noturus
gilberti), piebald madtom (Noturus gladiator), Ouachita madtom (Noturus
lachneri), frecklebelly madtom (Noturus munitus), Caddo madtom (Noturus
taylori), Chesapeake logperch (Percina bimaculata), coal darter
(Percina brevicauda), Halloween darter (Percina crypta), bluestripe
darter (Percina cymatotaenia), bridled darter (Percina
[[Page 59842]]
kusha), longhead darter (Percina macrocephala), longnose darter
(Percina nasuta), bankhead darter (Percina sipsi), sickle darter
(Percina williamsi), broadstripe shiner (Pteronotropis euryzonus),
bluehead shiner (Pteronotropis hubbsi), and blackfin sucker (Thoburnia
atripinnis). The NatureServe global ranking of these fish ranges from
G1 to G4.
Since receipt of the CBD petition, the laurel dace was proposed for
listing as endangered (75 FR 36035; June 24, 2010). The sicklefin
redhorse has already been found to be warranted for listing and is a
current Federal candidate species.
On December 30, 1977, the Barrens topminnow was proposed for
listing as endangered with critical habitat (42 FR 65209). On March 6,
1979, the critical habitat portion of the proposal was withdrawn due to
the procedural and substantive changes made to the Act in 1978 (44 FR
12382). On July 27, 1979, the Service published a reproposal of
critical habitat for the Barrens topminnow (44 FR 44418). A final
listing was never published, and the species was subsequently
classified as a category 2 candidate for Federal listing until that
category was discontinued in 1996.
On October 6, 1983, the Service was petitioned to list the
orangefin madtom and a substantial finding was published on January 16,
1984 (49 FR 1919). On completion of the status review on October 12,
1984, a 12-month finding was made that listing the orangefin madtom was
warranted but precluded by other efforts to revise the Lists. This
finding was announced in a July 18, 1985, Federal Register notice (50
FR 29238). The species remained a candidate species until its removal
from the candidate list in 1996.
In addition to the above species, 24 of the petitioned fish were at
one time candidates for listing under the Act. The peppered shiner,
paleback darter, and Ouachita madtom were category 1 candidates (47 FR
58454). However, they were subsequently removed from the candidate
list. Twenty-one of the petitioned fish were category 2 candidates for
listing, including the following: Northern cavefish, bluestripe shiner,
Carolina pygmy sunfish, Warrior darter, holiday darter, ashy darter,
Barrens darter, candy darter, egg-mimic darter, striated darter,
trispot darter, Tuscumbia darter, robust redhorse, Ozark shiner,
Carolina madtom, frecklebelly madtom, Caddo madtom, bluestripe darter,
longhead darter, longnose darter, and Halloween darter.
In 1995, the Service entered into a cooperative voluntary
partnership, the Robust Redhorse Conservation Committee, to conserve
the robust redhorse through a Memorandum of Understanding between State
and Federal resource agencies, private industry, and the conservation
community. In 2002, the Service entered into a Robust Redhorse
Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances with the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources and the Georgia Power Company to
restore the species to the Ocmulgee River.
The petition identified one springfly, the Blueridge springfly
(Remenus kirchneri), and one moth, the Louisiana eyed silkmoth
(Automeris louisiana), and requested that they be added to the List.
These species hold NatureServe global rankings of G2.
The petition identified four mammals and requested that they be
added to the List, including the following: Sherman's short-tailed
shrew (Blarina carolinensis shermani), Pine Island oryzomys or marsh
rice rat (Oryzomys palustris, pop. 1), Sanibel Island oryzomys or marsh
rice rat (Oryzomys palustris, pop. 2), and insular cotton rat (Sigmodon
hispidus insulicola). All four of these mammals are afforded a ranking
of G1 or T1 by NatureServe. The insular cotton rat was previously a
category 2 candidate species but was removed from the candidate list in
1996 when the category was discontinued.
The petition identified two isopods and requested that they be
added to the List: The Caecidotea cannula (no common name) and Rye Cove
isopod (Lirceus culveri). These isopods are given NatureServe rankings
of G2 (Caecidotea cannula) and G1 (Rye Cove isopod). Both species were
former category 2 candidates for listing, until that category was
discontinued in 1996.
The petition identified 48 mussels and requested that they be added
to the List. Thirteen species of mussels identified in the petition are
not evaluated in this finding; twelve have previously been found by the
Service to warrant listing, and one, the Ouachita creekshell (Villosa
arkansasensis) has not yet been evaluated. Thirty-five of the
petitioned species are included in this finding, including the
following: Altamaha arcmussel (Alasmidonta arcula), southern elktoe
(Alasmidonta triangulata), brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa),
Apalachicola floater (Anodonta heardi), rayed creekshell (Anodontoides
radiatus), western fanshell (Cyprogenia aberti), southern lance
(Elliptio ahenea), Alabama spike (Elliptio arca), delicate spike
(Elliptio arctata), brother spike (Elliptio fraterna), yellow lance
(Elliptio lanceolata), St. Johns elephant ear (Elliptio monroensis),
inflated spike (Elliptio purpurella), Tennessee pigtoe (Pleuronaia
barnesiana), Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), longsolid (Fusconaia
subrotunda), Waccamaw fatmucket (Lampsilis fullerkati), Tennessee
heelsplitter (Lasmigona holstonia), green floater (Lasmigona
subviridis), Cumberland moccasinshell (Medionidus conradicus), Suwannee
moccasinshell (Medionidus walkeri), round hickorynut (Obovaria
subrotunda), Alabama hickorynut (Obovaria unicolor), Canoe Creek pigtoe
(Pleurobema athearni), Tennessee clubshell (Pleurobema oviforme),
Warrior pigtoe (Pleurobema rubellum), pyramid pigtoe (Pleurobema
rubrum), inflated floater (Pyganodon gibbosa), Tallapoosa orb (Quadrula
asperata archeri), salamander mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua), purple
lilliput (Toxolasma lividus), Savannah lilliput (Toxolasma pullus),
Alabama rainbow (Villosa nebulosa), Kentucky creekshell (Villosa
ortmanni), and Coosa creekshell (Villosa umbrans).
These mussels have NatureServe rankings ranging from G1, critically
imperiled, to G3, vulnerable, with one mussel, the round hickorynut,
having a ranking of G4, apparently stable. The Atlantic pigtoe,
Waccamaw fatmucket, Tennessee heelsplitter, green floater, Suwannee
moccasinshell, Tennessee clubshell, warrior pigtoe, salamander mussel,
purple lilliput, Savannah lilliput, and Kentucky creekshell, are
previous category 2 candidates for listing, but were removed when the
category was discontinued in 1996.
The snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra) and rayed bean (Villosa
fabalis) were proposed for listing as endangered on November 2, 2010
(75 FR 67552). The spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta) and sheepnose
(Plethobasus cyphyus) were proposed as endangered on January 19, 2011
(76 FR 3392). The other eight are current candidates for Federal
listing and subjects of a draft proposed rule to list, including the
narrow pigtoe (Fusconaia escambia), round ebonyshell (Fusconaia
rotulata), southern sandshell (Hamiota australis), fuzzy pigtoe
(Pleurobema strodeanum), southern kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus jonesi),
rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica), tapered pigtoe (Fusconaia
burkei), and Choctaw bean (Villosa choctawensis).
The petition identified six non-vascular plants and requested that
they be added to the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants,
including the following: Fissidens appalachensis (Appalachian fissidens
moss), Fissidens hallii (Hall's pocket moss), Megaceros aenigmaticus
(hornwort), Phaeophyscia
[[Page 59843]]
leana (Lea's bog lichen), Plagiochila caduciloba (Gorge leafy
liverwort), and Plagiochila sharpii ssp. sharpii (Sharp's leafy
liverwort). The NatureServe Global ranking for these plants ranges from
G2, imperiled (Fissidens appalachensis, Fissidens hallii, Phaeophyscia
leana, and Megaceros aenigmaticus), to G3, vulnerable (Plagiochila
caduciloba), to T3, vulnerable (Plagiochila sharpii ssp. sharpii).
Plagiochila caduciloba and Plagiochila sharpii ssp. sharpii held prior
Federal category 2 candidate status, but were removed from that list
when we discontinued use of the category 2 and 3C lists in 1996.
The petition identified 13 reptiles and requested that they be
added to the List. Twelve of these are subjects of this finding,
including the following: Kirtland's snake (Clonophis kirtlandii),
western chicken turtle (Deirochelys reticularia miaria), Florida keys
mole skink (Eumeces egregius egregius), Barbour's map turtle (Graptemys
barbouri), Escambia map turtle (Graptemys ernsti), Pascagoula map
turtle (Graptemys gibbonsi), black-knobbed map turtle (Graptemys
nigrinoda), Alabama map turtle (Graptemys pulchra), Lower Florida Keys
striped mud turtle (Kinosternon baurii, pop. 1), Florida Panhandle
Florida red-bellied turtle (Pseudemys nelsoni, pop. 1), northern red-
bellied cooter (Pseudemys rubriventris), and Lower Florida Keys eastern
ribbonsnake (Thamnophis sauritus, pop. 1).
The Kirtland's snake, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle,
and Pascagoula map turtle have a NatureServe conservation status of G2,
with State rankings varying from possibly extirpated, to S1, to S2. The
black-knobbed map turtle has a NatureServe ranking of G3. The Alabama
map turtle has a NatureServe ranking of G4, but State rankings vary
from S1 to S3. The Florida Keys mole skink and Lower Florida Keys
eastern ribbonsnake are given a NatureServe global ranking of T1. The
western chicken turtle is considered secure by NatureServe with a
global ranking of T5. The Lower Florida Keys striped mud turtle and the
Florida Panhandle population of the Florida red-bellied turtle are
given a T2 NatureServe ranking. We proposed to list the striped mud
turtle as endangered on May 19, 1978 (43 FR 21702) but never finalized
the listing. The species was placed on the category 2 candidate list on
December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58454). The northern red-bellied cooter is
given a NatureServe ranking of G4 or apparently stable with State
rankings ranging from S2 (imperiled) to S5 (stable). In addition to the
striped mud turtle, Kirtland's snake, Florida Keys mole skink, and
Barbour's map turtle were each prior Federal category 2 candidate
species. The black-knobbed map turtle was a prior category 3C candidate
species (taxa that were proven to be more widespread than was
previously believed and/or those that were not subject to any
identifiable threat).
The petition identified 44 snails and requested that they be added
to the List, of which 43 are subjects of this finding, including the
following: Manitou cavesnail (Antrorbis breweri), Blue Spring hydrobe
snail (Aphaostracon asthenes), freemouth hydrobe snail (Aphaostracon
chalarogyrus), Wekiwa hydrobe snail (Aphaostracon monas), dense hydrobe
snail (Aphaostracon pycnus), Clifton Spring hydrobe snail (Aphaostracon
theiocrenetum), acute elimia (Elimia acuta), mud elimia (Elimia
alabamensis), ample elimia (Elimia ampla), Lilyshoals elimia (Elimia
annettae), spider elimia (Elimia arachnoidea), princess elimia (Elimia
bellacrenata), walnut elimia (Elimia bellula), prune elimia (Elimia
chiltonensis), cockle elimia (Elimia cochliaris), cylinder elimia
(Elimia cylindracea), nodulose Coosa River snail (Elimia lachryma),
round-rib elimia (Elimia nassula), caper elimia (Elimia olivula),
engraved elimia (Elimia perstriata), compact elimia (Elimia
showalteri), elegant elimia (Elimia teres), cobble elimia (Elimia
vanuxemiana), Ichetucknee siltsnail (Floridobia mica), Enterprise
siltsnail (Floridobia monroensis), pygmy siltsnail (Floridobia parva),
Ponderosa siltsnail (Floridobia ponderosa), Wekiwa siltsnail
(Floridobia wekiwae), spiny riversnail (Io fluvialis), Arkansas mudalia
(Leptoxis arkansasensis), spotted rocksnail (Leptoxis picta), smooth
mudalia (Leptoxis virgata), knobby rocksnail (Lithasia curta), helmet
rocksnail (Lithasia duttoniana), Ocmulgee marstonia (Marstonia
agarhecta), beaverpond marstonia (Marstonia castor), Ozark pyrg
(Marstonia ozarkensis), magnificant rams-horn (Planorbella magnifica),
corpulent hornsnail (Pleurocera corpulenta), shortspire hornsnail
(Pleurocera curta), skirted hornsnail (Pleurocera pyrenella), domed
ancylid (Rhodacme elatior), and reverse pebblesnail (Somatogyrus
alcoviensis).
These 43 snails each maintain a NatureServe ranking of either G1,
critically imperiled, or G2, imperiled. Several are previous Federal
category 2 candidates, including the magnificent rams-horn, beaverpond
marstonia, Ocmulgee marstonia, and the skirted hornsnail, until that
category was discontinued in 1996.
The petition identified eight stoneflies and requested that they be
added to the List, including the following: Virginia stone (Acroneuria
kosztarabi), Sevier snowfly (Allocapnia brooksi), Smokies snowfly
(Allocapnia fumosa), Karst snowfly (Allocapnia cunninghami), Tennessee
forestfly (Amphinemura mockfordi), Louisiana needlefly (Leuctra
szczytkoi), Smokies needlefly (Megaleuctra williamsae), and lobed
roachfly (Tallaperla lobata). The Virginia stone and Karst snowfly are
assigned a NatureServe global ranking of G1, critically imperiled. The
Sevier snowfly, Smokies snowfly, Tennessee forestfly, Louisiana
needlefly, Smokies needlefly, and lobed roachfly are assigned
NatureServe global rankings of G2.
Lastly, the petition identified 76 vascular plants and requested
that they be added to the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants, of
which 75 are included in this finding, including the following:
Aeschynomene pratensis (meadow joint-vetch), Alnus maritima (seaside
alder), Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana (Georgia leadplant or Georgia
indigo bush), Arnoglossum diversifolium (variable-leaved Indian-
plantain), Balduina atropurpurea (purple balduina or purple disk
honeycombhead), Baptisia megacarpa (Apalachicola wild indigo), Bartonia
texana (Texas screwstem), Boltonia montana (Doll's daisy), Calamovilfa
arcuata (rivergrass), Carex brysonii (Bryson's sedge), Carex
impressinervia (impressed-nerved sedge), Coreopsis integrifolia
(ciliate-leaf tickseed), Croton elliottii (Elliott's croton), Elytraria
caroliniensis var. angustifolia (narrowleaf Carolina scalystem),
Encyclia cochleata var. triandra (Clam-shell orchid), Epidendrum
strobiliferum (Big Cypress epidendrum), Eriocaulon koernickianum
(small-headed pipewort), Eriocaulon nigrobracteatum (black-bracked
pipewort), Eupatorium paludicola (a thoroughwort), Eurybia
saxicastellii (Rockcastle wood-aster), Fimbristylis perpusilla
(Harper's fimbristylis), Forestiera godfreyi (Godfry's privet),
Hartwrightia floridan (Hartwrightia), Helianthus occidentalis ssp.
plantagineus (Shinner's sunflower), Hexastylis speciosa (Harper's
heartleaf), Hymenocallis henryae (Henry's spider-lily), Hypericum
edisonianum (Edison's ascyrum), Hypericum lissophloeus (smooth-barked
St. John's-w